-->
@3RU7AL
Not enough apparently if they are electing these idiots.
Nordic countries got it right. Tax the poor, and idiots and crony crooks don't run the government.
Socialism: The New American Dream
Posts
Total:
231
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think criminals file taxes you're a dip shit.
If you think criminals file taxes you're a dip shit.
Please cite your sources.
-->
@3RU7AL
If only Al Capone filed his taxes like all the other good criminals.
They don't seem to understand that block "other income" on the tax form should include your thief stash.
Socialism doesn't need to be an economic system. Chinese economy is pure capitalism, but its whole system seems to be socialist. Every government in the world intervene to different degrees its economy in order to distribute its wealth so to reduce inequality. Being socialist is a trend when it comes to reduce poverty and inequality in the world, very likely because it appears to be the only solution out there that does what capitalism and market cannot do.
It wouldn't be surprising if Sanders won the next elections.
Il Diavolo
If the right continues to suck corporate dick and be apologists for corporate capitalism, then they fully deserve to lose to someone like Sanders, and the country will be better for it.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Socialism doesn't need to be an economic system. Chinese economy is pure capitalism, but its whole system seems to be socialist. Every government in the world intervene to different degrees its economy in order to distribute its wealth so to reduce inequality
It's almost as if capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive?!
-->
@3RU7AL
They don't need to be so. Capitalism is the economy taken over thoroughly by the market, meanwhile socialism is taken over by people (represented by the government). Every country is in the middle of both systems, sometimes in the extreme of capitalism (like the US), and sometimes in the extreme of socialism (like Cuba).
Il Diavolo
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
It's like the crony right still hasn't figured out how Jeb Bush could have possibly lost....
At this point, I would be happy to support a socialist if they promise to adopt the Nordic Tax policies. No taxes on the poor has rotted the government to the core. Near half the country with zero skin in the game.
-->
@Greyparrot
Please elaborate.No taxes on the poor has rotted the government to the core.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->
@Greyparrot
You must mean those socialist scandinavian countries that you claim have failed due to socialism. Don't know anything do you?
-->
@Greyparrot
And the uber rich 1% who pay even less tax.
-->
@Greyparrot
I listened to this over the weekend. [LINK]Enjoy.
He refused to summarize his book, but he does end up making a few interesting points mixed in (about 50/50) with some incoherent anecdotes.
He suggests that people who declare war should be required to send their draft aged children and grand children into combat.
This seems like a fair point.
Then he suggests that entrepreneurs should risk permanent financial and reputational losses for their endeavors. This seems idiotic.
People who "risk it all" and succeed make compelling subjects for study and amusement, however they are not ideal models to emulate.
Survival bias is great in theory, but it neglects all the uncompelling failure stories that are never made into best selling books and movies.
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not idiotic, what's idiotic is letting some rich dickhole kill around 100,000 people and retire into the sunset with generous stock options. You fail to realize that a system like the one which Taleb advocates would restructure incentives. People jaywalk less in Singapore, because instead of getting a fat payout from lawsuit if a car hits you and zero consequences if it doesn't, you get up to $1,000 dollars in fines if you step out onto the pavement and if you get hit outside of a crosswalk you don't have right of way. If you argued against the Singaporean system by citing the frequency of jaywalking in the US and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines or mowed over then you are making either a dishonest or an ignorant argument. This is because when you introduce a risk to a decision, people decide differently. The end result of not shielding people for economic risks is that they would take fewer economic risks, which means that there are a whole lot of stupid risks which the system no longer needs to absorb.
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it is about 50% on the money.
It's not idiotic, what's idiotic is letting some rich dickhole kill around 100,000 people and retire into the sunset with generous stock options.
I already said, "this seems like a fair point".
You fail to realize that a system like the one which Taleb advocates would restructure incentives.
The only detectable "system" Taleb seemed to identify was "the silver rule". Which is great in theory, but only "works" about 50% in practice.
People jaywalk less in Singapore, because instead of getting a fat payout from lawsuit if a car hits you and zero consequences if it doesn't, you get up to $1,000 dollars in fines if you step out onto the pavement and if you get hit outside of a crosswalk you don't have right of way. If you argued against the Singaporean system by citing the frequency of jaywalking in the US and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines or mowed over then you are making either a dishonest or an ignorant argument.
Gross bodily injury and possible death is not enough risk for you? You make it sound like people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation. Please cite your sources.
This is because when you introduce a risk to a decision, people decide differently. The end result of not shielding people for economic risks is that they would take fewer economic risks, which means that there are a whole lot of stupid risks which the system no longer needs to absorb.
The problem isn't with the pedestrians "taking stupid risks". Do you have any thoughts on the automobile designer who makes a vehicle capable of traveling 120kph over any speed limit in the country? Do you realize that it is possible to design vehicles that drastically reduce pedestrian injuries?
That's part of the problem. When people like this start talking about "personal responsibility" it always seems to focus on the people who have the least. Doesn't the driver have "personal responsibility"? What about the city planner who builds hundreds of blind corners into their street plan?
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.
You don't seem to understand how money works. The banks have lobbied to get government guarantees for student loans. Not to "help" anyone, but in order to boost their profit margins. It's not the student's own personal failure. The banks are in a rush to loan to any student regardless of their potential earnings simply because they've (the banks themselves) lobbied to have those loans guaranteed. I agree this also inflates tuition. I would love to see an end to guaranteed student loans. I just don't blame the students for any of this mess.
-->
@3RU7AL
People jaywalk less in Singapore, because instead of getting a fat payout from lawsuit if a car hits you and zero consequences if it doesn't, you get up to $1,000 dollars in fines if you step out onto the pavement and if you get hit outside of a crosswalk you don't have right of way. If you argued against the Singaporean system by citing the frequency of jaywalking in the US and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines or mowed over then you are making either a dishonest or an ignorant argument.Gross bodily injury and possible death is not enough risk for you? You make it sound like people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation. Please cite your sources.
"For not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education."
- Aristotle -
- Aristotle -
You ask someone to cite sources when they're referencing an event or a statistic. When they make an argument from analogy, you either pick apart one of their points or the structure of their logic. That's exactly what this example was: an analogy to show the principle of behavioral psychology which underlies the phenomenon in question, and to illuminate why arguments attacking changes in risk from the assumption of persistent trends in behavior are misguided.
This is because when you introduce a risk to a decision, people decide differently. The end result of not shielding people for economic risks is that they would take fewer economic risks, which means that there are a whole lot of stupid risks which the system no longer needs to absorb.The problem isn't with the pedestrians "taking stupid risks". Do you have any thoughts on the automobile designer who makes a vehicle capable of traveling 120kph over any speed limit in the country? Do you realize that it is possible to design vehicles that drastically reduce pedestrian injuries?
How many automobile-pedestrian collisions are at 120km/h are over? How many pedestrian-heavy areas even offer the physical possibility to accelerate to those speeds before running into traffic or a stop light? Which is easier on society at large: for everyone to drive 55mph on the freeway, or for idiots to not step into a road outside of a crosswalk?
That's part of the problem. When people like this start talking about "personal responsibility" it always seems to focus on the people who have the least. Doesn't the driver have "personal responsibility"? What about the city planner who builds hundreds of blind corners into their street plan?
The driver does have personal responsibility. When the pedestrian is in the cross walk, the driver has the responsibility to stop. When the driver is on the road, the pedestrian has the personal responsibility to stay on the side walk. As for city planning, Singapore receives a lot of complaints from certain corners, but it's usually considered one of the best planned cities in the world.
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.You don't seem to understand how money works. The banks have lobbied to get government guarantees for student loans. Not to "help" anyone, but in order to boost their profit margins. It's not the student's own personal failure. The banks are in a rush to loan to any student regardless of their potential earnings simply because they've (the banks themselves) lobbied to have those loans guaranteed. I agree this also inflates tuition. I would love to see an end to guaranteed student loans. I just don't blame the students for any of this mess.
Where did I blame the students? I rather explicitly said that the banks had divested themselves of risk and that said risk should be returned. The students are mostly dumb kids, society should protect them, not throw them to these fucking usurious vultures. If the bank gave a student a loan of $70,000 to pursue a degree in queer theory, then the bank deserves to lose every single penny.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Gross bodily injury and possible death is not enough risk for you? You make it sound like people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation. Please cite your sources."For not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education."- Aristotle -You ask someone to cite sources when they're referencing an event or a statistic. When they make an argument from analogy, you either pick apart one of their points or the structure of their logic. That's exactly what this example was: an analogy to show the principle of behavioral psychology which underlies the phenomenon in question, and to illuminate why arguments attacking changes in risk from the assumption of persistent trends in behavior are misguided.
So basically, you have no answer.
Are you suggesting that people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation?
Yes or no.
How many automobile-pedestrian collisions are at 120km/h are over?
Although it can be tempting to push the speed limit when you are running late, speeding is the second most common cause of accidents, so you should resist the urge and stay within the legal limits. [LINK]
How many pedestrian-heavy areas even offer the physical possibility to accelerate to those speeds before running into traffic or a stop light?
Even traveling 5 miles over the speed limit can mean the difference between a deadly collision with a pedestrian and avoiding an accident altogether.
Which is easier on society at large: for everyone to drive 55mph on the freeway, or for idiots to not step into a road outside of a crosswalk?
(IFF) the driver is speeding or distracted (THEN) they should also be heavily fined at least as much if not moreso than your hypothetical pedestrian.
That's part of the problem. When people like this start talking about "personal responsibility" it always seems to focus on the people who have the least. Doesn't the driver have "personal responsibility"? What about the city planner who builds hundreds of blind corners into their street plan?The driver does have personal responsibility. When the pedestrian is in the cross walk, the driver has the responsibility to stop. When the driver is on the road, the pedestrian has the personal responsibility to stay on the side walk.
Oh, ok, I guess we agree 100%.
As for city planning, Singapore receives a lot of complaints from certain corners, but it's usually considered one of the best planned cities in the world.
I guess that's pretty amazing if you live in Singapore, but it doesn't really answer my question.
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.You don't seem to understand how money works. The banks have lobbied to get government guarantees for student loans. Not to "help" anyone, but in order to boost their profit margins. It's not the student's own personal failure. The banks are in a rush to loan to any student regardless of their potential earnings simply because they've (the banks themselves) lobbied to have those loans guaranteed. I agree this also inflates tuition. I would love to see an end to guaranteed student loans. I just don't blame the students for any of this mess.Where did I blame the students? I rather explicitly said that the banks had divested themselves of risk and that said risk should be returned. The students are mostly dumb kids, society should protect them, not throw them to these fucking usurious vultures. If the bank gave a student a loan of $70,000 to pursue a degree in queer theory, then the bank deserves to lose every single penny.
You seemed to "blame the students" with your sexist-homophobic "basketweaving" remark.
Very well, if you are advocating for banks being responsible for their losses, like they should have been for the "housing crisis" then again, we are 100% in agreement.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
People jaywalk less in Singapore, because instead of getting a fat payout from lawsuit if a car hits you and zero consequences if it doesn't, you get up to $1,000 dollars in fines if you step out onto the pavement and if you get hit outside of a crosswalk you don't have right of way. If you argued against the Singaporean system by citing the frequency of jaywalking in the US and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines or mowed over then you are making either a dishonest or an ignorant argument. This is because when you introduce a risk to a decision, people decide differently.
I think it was pretty impressive that you predicted his counter argument before he actually gave it.
-->
@Greyparrot
and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines
Just as long as the drivers are also bankrupted by fines. Responsibility should be symmetrical.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, why aren't drivers bankrupted today for driving out of their driving lane?
-->
@Greyparrot
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that drivers bear no responsibility for injuring pedestrians?Lol, why aren't drivers bankrupted today for driving out of their driving lane?
Where's their "skin in the game"?
-->
@Greyparrot
Your question appears to be rhetorical.
I'm simply asking you for clarification.
-->
@3RU7AL
What is rhetorical about the question? Drivers get fined for driving outside of their lane. That is not a hypothetical.
-->
@Greyparrot
What is rhetorical about the question? Drivers get fined for driving outside of their lane. That is not a hypothetical.
Great, you already knew the answer. That is the very definition of a rhetorical question.
Congratulations on another artful dodge.