Economy: Brace for impact

[Anders]

:D

Look out. Your president is gearing up for a faith based economy.

Greenspan is an old lad. And next year he have to retire. And who is the favorite for the spot? Martin Feldstein, supply side woodoo doctor number one.

Please don´t go bankrupt US while you wait (and wait) for the tax cut to pay for themselves. It would hurt the rest of us also. And please don´t become so dependent on borrowed money from China that an independent far east policy becomes impossible.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Anders
:D

Look out. Your president is gearing up for a faith based economy.

Greenspan is an old lad. And next year he have to retire. And who is the favorite for the spot? Martin Feldstein, supply side woodoo doctor number one.

Please don´t go bankrupt US while you wait (and wait) for the tax cut to pay for themselves. It would hurt the rest of us also. And please don´t become so dependent on borrowed money from China that an independent far east policy becomes impossible.

God will provide. Just have faith. 8)

[Scott]

So assuming you're right about Feldstein getting the job soon. What exactly will he do to ruin the economy?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
So assuming you're right about Feldstein getting the job soon. What exactly will he do to ruin the economy?

Uh. He explained it. Did you read the post?

Hint: Reaganomics don't work.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
Uh. He explained it. Did you read the post?

Hint: Reaganomics don't work.

How did it not work?

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
Uh. He explained it. Did you read the post?

Hint: Reaganomics don't work.

Uh hum? So give details. Rate hikes? Rate cuts? Tell congress to cut taxes? Where and to what level?

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
How did it not work?

They don't work because people are inherently greedy and don't put any of their "earnings" back into the economy where the economy needs it the most.

Reagan cuts taxes. The economy dives.
Bush I raises taxes (read my lips). The economy starts recovering.
Clinton raises taxes and adds social programs. The economy skyrockets.
Bush cuts taxes. The economy drills for oil.

[tonton]

The best standards of living in the world are in Scandinavian countries. Those countries with the highest taxes.

The worst standards of living in the world are in countries where tax collection is difficult due to failure of the government, i.e. low/no taxes.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by SDW2001
How did it not work?

It did not work for parasitical socialists and fellow-traveling democrats.

It did just fine for everyone else.

Aries 1B

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
It did not work for parasitical socialists and fellow-traveling democrats.

It did just fine for everyone else.

Aries 1B


Uuupp!-Uppp!-Uppp!

I must correct myself!

Bill and Hillary Clinton did just fine during the Reagan years. The Kennedy Clan seems to have remained solvent. The Heinz fortune (the one with all of the manufacturing plants off shore; yeah, that one) appears intact as well.

I stand corrected.

Aries 1B

[Ra]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Uuupp!-Uppp!-Uppp!

I must correct myself!

Bill and Hillary Clinton did just fine during the Reagan years. The Kennedy Clan seems to have remained solvent. The Heinz fortune (the one with all of the manufacturing plants off shore; yeah, that one) appears intact as well.

I stand corrected.

Aries 1B You forgot Cheney's Haliburton dealing w/Iran. They did just fine as well.

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
They don't work because people are inherently greedy and don't put any of their "earnings" back into the economy where the economy needs it the most.

...


Where do they put the money so that it's not in the economy?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
Where do they put the money so that it's not in the economy?

They hoard it. They invest in companies that only wealthen those already rich. They buy luxury items that are made overseas. They travel and spend their money in foreign countries.

[tonton]

Scott, please tell me how you spent your tax cut.

I didn't get a tax cut because I don't pay taxes in the US. My parents probably got about $200 from the tax cut. They put it into their quickly depleting savings.

[midwinter]

I put mine on a credit card. Anyway, the average joe's $300 refund ain't the point. It's refunds like this (http://www.bradley-whitford.net/media/vidaud/bradantibush.mov) that were the point.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
It did not work for parasitical socialists and fellow-traveling democrats.

It did just fine for everyone else.

Aries 1B

Interesting...(hand me the tranquilizer gun betty)....say more, about the parasitical socialists....

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
How did it not work?


Loss of ground for the middle class, no trickle down, huge debt. he same thing that's happening right now.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
It did not work for parasitical socialists and fellow-traveling democrats.

It did just fine for everyone else.

Aries 1B


You know for a guy that takes his handle from a Kubrick film I like a lot you sure do say some unintellectual things!:no:

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
They hoard it. They invest in companies that only wealthen those already rich. They buy luxury items that are made overseas. They travel and spend their money in foreign countries.

Unless they are stuffing their money in a mattress their money is in the economy. So everything you posted past "hoard it" is part of the economy.

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
Scott, please tell me how you spent your tax cut.

...

You'll love this. I bought art with it. My wife and I bought a $XXXX work of art using both the tax cut and a PTO buyout she got from work.

Does that help the economy or not?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Scott
You'll love this. I bought art with it. My wife and I bought a $XXXX work of art using both the tax cut and a PTO buyout she got from work.

Does that help the economy or not?

Yes. But thats not the way trickle down theory wanted you to use it. But demand is much better to get the wheels rolling again than supply.

If you had invested your money in canvas and paint (like supply side wants you to) there would have been one less buyer of art and one more supplier.

So you have done good for the economy because you chose to act in a way that defice(sp?) the theory. You acted just like most people would do if the money had been given to those with low income.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
Unless they are stuffing their money in a mattress their money is in the economy. So everything you posted past "hoard it" is part of the economy.

Please explain how going to Paris and having dinner at a posh hotel helps the American economy, other than through the purchase of the air ticket and the jobs that supports.

And please explain how your art purchase creates jobs as well as putting the same amount into a vocational training program would.

[Scott]

Well? If the artist I bought it from made enough to quit his day job then someone else could have it. Then don't forget he spends that money on other things, like trips to Paris or maybe just more paint.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by tonton
They don't work because people are inherently greedy and don't put any of their "earnings" back into the economy where the economy needs it the most.

Reagan cuts taxes. The economy dives.
Bush I raises taxes (read my lips). The economy starts recovering.
Clinton raises taxes and adds social programs. The economy skyrockets.
Bush cuts taxes. The economy drills for oil.

BTW, Clinton cut social programs, not added to them. And the economy was already improving before he took office, he was just smart enough to keep an 'even hand on the tiller'. IMHO, Greenspan has had more influence on the economy over the last 15 or so years than any President..

Reaganomics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html)
The U.S. economy experienced substantial turbulence during the Reagan years despite favorable general economic conditions. This was the "creative destruction" that is characteristic of a healthy economy. At the end of the Reagan administration, the U.S. economy had experienced the longest peacetime expansion ever. The "stagflation" and "malaise" that plagued the U.S. economy from 1973 through 1980 were transformed by the Reagan economic program into a sustained period of higher growth and lower inflation.

There was more than enough blame to go around for each of these problems. Reagan resisted tax increases, and Congress resisted cuts in domestic spending. The administration was slow to acknowledge the savings and loan problem, and Congress urged forbearance on closing the failing banks. Reagan's rhetoric strongly supported free trade, but pressure from threatened industries and Congress led to a substantial increase in new trade restraints. The future of Reaganomics will depend largely on how each of these three adverse legacies is resolved. Restraints on spending and regulation would sustain Reaganomics. But increased taxes and a reregulation of domestic and foreign trade would limit Reaganomics to an interesting but temporary experiment in economic policy.

Clintonomics (pdf download) (http://wwwx.oit.umass.edu/~peri/html/4/44.html)

The performance of the American economy under Clinton has also been far more mixed than is acknowledged by boosters of his ‘Third Way’. GDP growth and productivity gains have not exceeded the performance of previous presidential eras, even after offi cial statisticians have revised national accounts upwards to refl ect putative contributions to growth by computer technology, and genuine acceleration since 1996. Moreover, while unemployment and infl ation have both fallen, the drop has been in large measure due to the declining ability of workers to secure wage increases even in persistently tight labour markets. Finally, the real economic gains of the period have rested on a fragile foundation—a stock market in which prices have exploded beyond any previous historical experience, inducing an enormous expansion of private expenditure on consumption. But because household incomes have not risen to anywhere near as far as fi nancial asset values, the result has been unprecedented borrowing to pay for the spending spree. The springs of economic growth under Clinton have come from a levitating stock market setting off a debt-fi nanced private consumption boom.

Clintonomics Fairy Tales (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041013-091041-7003r.htm)

By the spring 1995, the president had abandoned Hillarycare for good and was proposing balanced budgets, albeit initially more for show.
____Then he informed an October 1995 fund-raiser in Texas that "I think I raised them [taxes] too much, too." In his 1996 State of the Union address, he grandly pronounced "the era of big government is over."
____The president then acquiesced in a series of important Republican initiatives. In election year 1996, he signed, reluctantly and with liberals raging in opposition, a historic Republican welfare reform program, eliminating scores of federal welfare regulations and transferring critical spending authority to the states.

____The result: The economy bloomed. Money flowed into the U.S. Treasury largely because people became wealthier. Taxes on income and capital gains soared, not because rates were raised but because taxes were being lowered. Spending was restrained, GDP rose at a healthy 4 percent clip and the Dow Jones average more than tripled by the time Mr. Clinton left office — and remains at stratospheric heights to this day.
____The Ronald Reagan peace dividend, with an assist from George H.W. Bush, also proved crucial in generating the surpluses the Democrats keep bragging about. According to John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Mr. Clinton, and William J. Perry, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary: "This 'peace dividend,' amounting to about $100 billion a year, has been a major contributor to the balanced budget that our economy now enjoys."

[Ra]

This all just illustrates how little impact the presidency actually has on the economy.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Ra
This all just illustrates how little impact the presidency actually has on the economy.

But they always seem to get the blame if it tanks, while Congress goes on with business as usual...:mad:

[NaplesX]

Yet another thread/conspiracy theory started and kept alive by the looney liberal left here at AI.

Thanks.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Anders
Greenspan is an old lad. And next year he have to retire.

Is this confirmed that he will be retiring?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
How did it not work?

$3 trillion national debt is a result of an economic policy failure...unless you see near bankrupty as a success?
Perhaps in these Bushwellian doublespeak days, that kind of inversion makes sense to you.

[Anders]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yet another thread/conspiracy theory started and kept alive by the looney liberal left here at AI.

Thanks.

That Greenspan is retiring? That Feldstein is the favorite to replace him?

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcamp014025294nov01,0,7836578.story?coll=ny-business-big-pix

(sorry couldn´t find better links. But Feldstein is mentioned each time I read about a replacenebt for Greenspan in finance papers)

Taht Supply side doesn´t work?

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/23More.htm

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/virus.html

The test for supply side is really simple:

The higher up in the income scale tax cuts are made the more of the now available money will be used as investments. If the tax cuts are made for the low income groups it will be used for consumption. Supply side and "demand side" agrees on this point.

Supply side argues that if you cut taxes for buisness and those on the high income scale the tax cuts will pay for themselves! because it stimulates the economy through new investments.

Problem with this theory is of course there is simply no evidence for that!. Sure it stimulates the economy but if the tax cuts doesn´t pay for themselves you have to discard supply side theory. Then the tax cuts are no more than ideology driven policy where you favors more money in the hands of parts of your population over a balanced budget (which is okay if thats what you want. Ideology isn´t bad in itself).

[tonton]

Anders, how much does an 18 year-old McDonald's clerk make in Denmark? And how much tax do they pay?

How about a secretary, range from entry-level to senior (10 years)?

How about various executive salaries?

And what's the unemployment rate in Denmark?

And how does Denmark's social security system work?

Oh, and sorry your philandering prince got dumped by his gorgeous Hong Kong wife. :(

I'm truly curious. Let's compare those figures against similar figures in the US (and Hong Kong). Hong Kong definitely follows the supply-side economics theory.

In Hong Kong:

McDonald's 18yo: US$1.92 per hour, no taxes (after standard deduction).

Secretary: US$1,000 per month (entry level) to US$2,500 per month (senior). Tax about 6-12%.

Executives:

Baptist University Vice President (http://chronicle.com/jobs/id.php?id=306600): US$200,000/year, salary tax: 16%(maximum in Hong Kong).

I'm searching for more, but I don't have time right now.

[Anders]

Originally posted by tonton
Anders, how much does an 18 year-old McDonald's clerk make in Denmark? And how much tax do they pay?

The salary would be about US$15, US$10-12 after taxes (depending on deduct-able interest, transport to work etc.)

Originally posted by tonton
How about a secretary, range from entry-level to senior (10 years)?

No real idea and very dependent on the type of work. From US$3200 to double of that per month. The lower for out of school with no responsibilities. Taxed would the lower paid have a third less after tax plus deductibles.

I´m working full time at the moment (37h/w) as customer service worker at a mobile company (guess its good danish isn´t taught in India;) ) and I get US$5000 (including bonus) before and US$2900 after taxes (but I have no interest to withdraw). Required education: High school, maybe less. Paid lunch, 6 weeks paid vacation and 8% for my pension on top of that.

Originally posted by tonton
How about various executive salaries?

No idea. I think the top management is paid like their US counterparts compared to the same company size. But then they have higher taxes.

And what's the unemployment rate in Denmark?[/B][/QUOTE]

6%. But that includes more people than in US. More women are in the work force and less people fall outside the statistics.

Originally posted by tonton
And how does Denmark's social security system work?

We have the general social system, like universal health care (but not dental for some strange reason), free K-university education (including a very generously "salary" for students older than 18), pensions etc etc.

The unemployment benefits are divided in two. All working persons can take out a policy (US$180 per month, deductable) which pay between US$91 and US$110 per day (subject to taxation) in case of unemployment. I think you can get it for five years. You have to be able to take a job in offered to get this benefit and special rules apply to those under 30 years old.

The other type is for those not having the policy. The rates are very varied depending on your situation. I would get US$1450 before taxes/US$1000 after (over 25 years old, no kids).

Originally posted by tonton
Oh, and sorry your philandering prince got dumped by his gorgeous Hong Kong wife. :(

He is a fuckhead.

[addabox]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yet another thread/conspiracy theory started and kept alive by the looney liberal left here at AI.

Thanks.

Oh naples, you droll wag you.

Say, why do you have that mackerel strapped to your face?

[Anders]

Wow. McD actually pay better than I thought.

This is the pay (http://www.mcdonalds.dk/cms/res/mcdonalds/98602/86855/Lønoversigt.pdf)

Translation. First line is the base salary (18 years and above/under 18 years old).
Next line is the bonus for work between 6 pm and midnight weekdays.
Next is saturday between 2 pm and midnight.
Next between sunday midnight and two hours later
Next is midnight until 6 am.

Plus 6% pension from McD

Holidays pay 100% extra. Overtime 50% for the two first hours and 100% for the rest.

You get 5,7-5,8 kroner for one dollar. So the absolute minimum for a 18 year old McD worker is 16.5 dollars, 11 dollars after tax. You can get a plane ticket to Berlin and back for 5 hours of McD work after tax :wow:

[Anders]

How did this turn into yet another thread about Iraq?

Back on track please

[tonton]

Wow.

All you Reagan Economists.

Read Anders' post.

Danes pay WAAAY more in taxes than Americans.

They also take WAAAY more home after taxes.

WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER?

Socialist Democracy (based on a constitutional monarchy in this case) works. Sorry, but it does.

A leading indicator of typical standard of living would be to compare the GINI index vs. the GDP per capita.

What's the GINI index? The GINI index basically measures the extent of the wealth gap. From CIA World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2172)

"This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100."

GINI index for the US is 45. Brazil is 60.7. Denmark is 24.7.

In this example, Brazil is extremely poor because of the huge wealth gap combined with the very low GDP per capita. Denmark is extremely rich because of the very narrow wealth gap combined with an extremely healthy GDP. While the GDP per capita of the US is infact higher than Denmark, the very high wealth gap means that there are a far higher percentage of poor Americans than Danes.

Those "tax and spend" Danes are way fucking happier than we are. Maybe we should give socialism a try.

Support socialist democracy.

And this (http://www.unicef.org/pon96/insolo.htm) is interesting.

[Anders]

One more post about the war and I am gonna clean up this thread.

[Anders]

Please don´t use this thread for unfinished grievances over the war, okay?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
Wow.

All you Reagan Economists.

Read Anders' post.

Danes pay WAAAY more in taxes than Americans.

They also take WAAAY more home after taxes.

WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER?

Socialist Democracy (based on a constitutional monarchy in this case) works. Sorry, but it does.

A leading indicator of typical standard of living would be to compare the GINI index vs. the GDP per capita.

What's the GINI index? The GINI index basically measures the extent of the wealth gap. From CIA World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2172)

"This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100."

GINI index for the US is 45. Brazil is 60.7. Denmark is 24.7.

In this example, Brazil is extremely poor because of the huge wealth gap combined with the very low GDP per capita. Denmark is extremely rich because of the very narrow wealth gap combined with an extremely healthy GDP. While the GDP per capita of the US is infact higher than Denmark, the very high wealth gap means that there are a far higher percentage of poor Americans than Danes.

Those "tax and spend" Danes are way fucking happier than we are. Maybe we should give socialism a try.

Support socialist democracy.

And this (http://www.unicef.org/pon96/insolo.htm) is interesting.

I don't know how much I would read into that figure. I looked it up and China, which is communist, is at 40. Also a huge wealth gap doesn't necessarily denote massive poverty. If the lowest number were a million and the highest 100 billion it would still be a huge gap. No one would argue that a millionare is poor though.

Pakistan is at 41, so obviously everyone there must be better off than in the United States, right? Must be according to your reasoning.:err:

Nick

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anders
Please don´t use this thread for unfinished grievances over the war, okay? So you delete posts that you don't agree with?

Is that even right? Is this the USSIA?

What a -. You don't -.

Moderator -... more like the -

This is "politica"l outsider, no? Political indicating that opinions come into play.

Any other Mods actually seeing this?

EDIT: Removed the bad things. A lot of anger in them thar posts... :embarrass

[hardeeharhar]

What is Naples' obsession with Quad-L speakers?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What is Naples' obsession with Quad-L speakers?

Naples is an obsession.:lol:

[midwinter]

I don't get this new "quad L" thing. Is this some new wingnut slang? What does it mean?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
I don't get this new "quad L" thing. Is this some new wingnut slang? What does it mean? No you wouldn't because Anders decided that part of the conversation needed to be deleted.

LLLL - Looney Liberal Loser Left

AKA 4L, Quad-L

[NaplesX]

Where are all of you free speech liberals?

[midwinter]

We recognize that there is a difference between being able to say what you want on your personal website and derailing threads on a business's discussion forum. You weren't silenced, and neither was I (my post was deleted, as well). You are perfectly free to start another thread. Part of what the mods do is attempt to keep the threads from wandering all over the place.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Where are all of you free speech liberals?

It's unlike you to indulge in gratuitous contradictions in terms.;)

Basking In The Afterglow,
Aries 1B

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
We recognize that there is a difference between being able to say what you want on your personal website and derailing threads on a business's discussion forum. You weren't silenced, and neither was I (my post was deleted, as well). You are perfectly free to start another thread. Part of what the mods do is attempt to keep the threads from wandering all over the place. -

I have been in threads that meandered more than the nile river, and posts were never deleted.

Anders is a typical - with some power. He didn't like what I had to say so he trashed those posts.

Even if he didn't like some of the content of some of the posts, he need not erase all of them.

I love the liberal application of fairness.

EDIT: Removed ugliness.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't know how much I would read into that figure. I looked it up and China, which is communist, is at 40. Also a huge wealth gap doesn't necessarily denote massive poverty. If the lowest number were a million and the highest 100 billion it would still be a huge gap. No one would argue that a millionare is poor though.

Pakistan is at 41, so obviously everyone there must be better off than in the United States, right? Must be according to your reasoning.:err:

Nick

You didn't read my post. Once again. Note the inclusion of "Per capita GDP" in what I said, as something that MUST be considered when looking at the Gini index.

And we all know China lies about every one of its economic figures. I bet China's Gini index is in reality more like 55. By the way, China is no longer a Communist country.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Liberal hypocrites.

I have been in threads that meandered more than the nile river, and posts were never deleted.

Anders is a typical coward with some power. He didn't like what I had to say so he trashed those posts.

Even if he didn't like some of the content of some of the posts, he need not erase all of them.

I love the liberal application of fairness.

Did you miss the part where I said my post was deleted, too? And yes, you're right. The moderation around here is a bit erratic, and I'd personally like to see the whip cracked more often, more posts deleted for being off-topic, more threads locked for getting off-track, and more assholes banned for personal attacks.

[midwinter]

Here's what I don't understand about supply-side economics: if it works, as many folks believe, then why does no one point out the unbelievable difference in pay between CEOs and the average salary of their employees? What is it, something like 400x more?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Did you miss the part where I said my post was deleted, too? And yes, you're right. The moderation around here is a bit erratic, and I'd personally like to see the whip cracked more often, more posts deleted for being off-topic, more threads locked for getting off-track, and more assholes banned for personal attacks. So how many posts did you have deleted?

How many did I?

You have eyes. Use them.

Pathetic, AI. Really.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So how many posts did you have deleted?

Two, I believe.

[NaplesX]

Anders, care to tell us how many of my posts you deleted to protect the PO community?

I like how the whole conversation was just wiped out. Never to be meantioned again.

Jimmac, you are not even in the least upset that your words were just deleted?

Makes one go hmmm....

[Harald]

You're insane.

Please stop with the name-calling, start a new thread with the exact words you just had deleted and then come back here and fail to answer why Denmark, with higher taxes, gives McDonald's workers higher take-home pay then America does.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Harald
You're insane.

Please stop with the name-calling, start a new thread with the exact words you just had deleted and then come back here and fail to answer why Denmark, with higher taxes, gives McDonald's workers higher take-home pay then America does.

Actually, I believe I had a post deleted that spoke to the Naples/insanity issue.

It was really quite compelling, clinically air tight, as it were.

Pity.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Naples, you win. I have an apology to make.

I emailed Anders to ask him to edit your posts because I realised that there was no way any of us here on the left could win this argument, what with your cogent posts and well articulated rebuffs.

I was desperate; again, I apologise.

Having said that, could you explain how it is that Denmark, with its higher taxes, sees low-payed, unskilled workers actually take home more pay than their equivalents in the United States?

Ta.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Incidentally, Naples, I have to point out that Anders posted this on the 12th:

Originally posted by Anders
How did this turn into yet another thread about Iraq?

Back on track please

this on the morning of the 14th:

Originally posted by Anders
Please don´t use this thread for unfinished grievances over the war, okay?

this on the afternoon:

Originally posted by Anders
One more post about the war and I am gonna clean up this thread.

and he then started another brand new thread with all your 'deleted' posts in it. So it's not like there's a liberal conspiracy and Anders is a Stalinist dedicated to the eradication of opinion and expression. Er, it's not like this wasn't coming. Do you see? It's more like... you can't behave like a knob just because you're convinced you're right. (That's my job.)

Anyway. Chill out. Dude.

Or I'll start talking about quad-c's, the CCCC brigade, in which only the first 'c' stands for 'Conservative'.






the last 'c' stands for 'cunts'

[Anders]

.So you delete posts that you don't agree with?

Is that even right? Is this the USSIA?

What a hypocrite. You don't even come close to enforcing rules when your Quad-L friends break them.

Moderator my ass... more like the "thought police"

This is "politica"l outsider, no? Political indicating that opinions come into play.

Any other Mods actually seeing this??

No you wouldn't because Anders decided that part of the conversation needed to be deleted.

LLLL - Looney Liberal Loser Left

AKA 4L, Quad-L

Where are all of you free speech liberals?

Liberal hypocrites.

I have been in threads that meandered more than the nile river, and posts were never deleted.

Anders is a typical coward with some power. He didn't like what I had to say so he trashed those posts.

Even if he didn't like some of the content of some of the posts, he need not erase all of them.

I love the liberal application of fairness

So how many posts did you have deleted?

How many did I?

You have eyes. Use them.

Pathetic, AI. Really.

Anders, care to tell us how many of my posts you deleted to protect the PO community?

I like how the whole conversation was just wiped out. Never to be meantioned again.

Jimmac, you are not even in the least upset that your words were just deleted?

Makes one go hmmm....



http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48120

It has been there since I cleaned up this thread

[jimmac]

Hey! Wait a minute! We haven't talked about the RCC!

Rightwing Constipated Conservatives!:lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anders
. http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48120

It has been there since I cleaned up this thread Alright then. I take back the things that i said. A little extra typing may have cleared it up.

Something like, oh I don't know :

"Moved to "xyz" thread." or something.

I do however expect Anders now to be just as diligent in all other threads that he mods. So that PO/AI is safe from the dangerous meandering that goes on.

I still think it was WAY over the line, though.

[Anders]

Okay then. I guess an excuse for everything you called me would be too much to expect :)

[Harald]

Now NaplesX has been proved wrong, I wonder if he'd like to return to the question?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Incidentally, Naples, I have to point out that Anders posted this on the 12th:



this on the morning of the 14th:



this on the afternoon:



and he then started another brand new thread with all your 'deleted' posts in it. So it's not like there's a liberal conspiracy and Anders is a Stalinist dedicated to the eradication of opinion and expression. Er, it's not like this wasn't coming. Do you see? It's more like... you can't behave like a knob just because you're convinced you're right. (That's my job.)

Anyway. Chill out. Dude.

Or I'll start talking about quad-c's, the CCCC brigade, in which only the first 'c' stands for 'Conservative'.






the last 'c' stands for 'cunts' Um, stop defending what you would cry "the sky is falling" if a republican/conservative did it to you, -

Anders, I posted to this thread on 11-13-2004 10:03 PM, last. (actual time stamp).

Your warning was on 11-14-2004 02:49 AM, almost 5 hours later.

You guys have all this neat technology like email and private messages and keyboards. Why don't you use it? I think a little something would have been courteous when manipulating free speech. I see you guys do it with every other mod intervention.

Maybe you just slipped this time.

EDIT: Took out angry content.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
Now NaplesX has been proved wrong, I wonder if he'd like to return to the question? Um, no. I have been given information that should have been given from the get-go.

Anders, went over the line in his moderating to clean up his own thread, when the same effort doesn't seem remotely close in other threads.

He clearly didn't inform anyone of the posts that were deleted, rather moved.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
Now NaplesX has been proved wrong, I wonder if he'd like to return to the question?

Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, no. I have been given information that should have been given from the get-go.

Anders, went over the line in his moderating to clean up his own thread, when the same effort doesn't seem remotely close in other threads.

He clearly didn't inform anyone of the posts that were deleted, rather moved.

I guess that's a 'no' then.

[NaplesX]

And a result of the tampering with/attempted controlling of the conversation has resulted in more posts completely off topic.

I plan on commenting on the irony of it all, until I get tired of typing or get distracted by something else. I am a little miffed about it, so....

Looks like a big backfire to me.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
You didn't read my post. Once again. Note the inclusion of "Per capita GDP" in what I said, as something that MUST be considered when looking at the Gini index.

And we all know China lies about every one of its economic figures. I bet China's Gini index is in reality more like 55. By the way, China is no longer a Communist country.

I did see that you put that. I just was pointing out how irrelevent income distribution is with regard to determining poverty. You were discussing it as a quality of life issue. Having equitable income distribution in no way insures a higher quality of life. Wealth creation is not a natural process. Those who squander it shouldn't be surprised when nothing automatically rises up to replace what was lost.

Finally regardless of what type of state you consider China to be, the point is that they are anything BUT laisse-faire. You give me the label you prefer for China and we can use it in this discussion.

Nick

[NaplesX]

ATTENTION.

I overreacted to the moving of the posts in this thread. For this I am sorry and I apologize to Anders for my attacks on him. I probably should have addressed him through PM as I asked him to do.

Sorry for the derailment. I will not post on this subject further.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
They don't work because people are inherently greedy and don't put any of their "earnings" back into the economy where the economy needs it the most.

Reagan cuts taxes. The economy dives.
Bush I raises taxes (read my lips). The economy starts recovering.
Clinton raises taxes and adds social programs. The economy skyrockets.
Bush cuts taxes. The economy drills for oil.

What warped world do you live in? Growth and revenues, not to metnion personal wealth exploded in the 1980's after Reagan's cuts. When you say people are "greedy", it's a real misunderstanding of economics and of human nature. This "greed" you refer to boosts consumer spending, which accounts for 2/3 of the US Economy.

As for Bush 41, raising taxes as a mistake. It did nothing to help the economy. In fact, there is no case that doesn't involve coicindental timing that supports tax hikes helping the economy. There is simply no logic in it, at least not in a consumer driven economy.

As for Bush 43, you are again wrong. The economy was in recession when he cut taxes. Now we're out of it. I'm not sure where you've gotten this version of history you posted.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Loss of ground for the middle class, no trickle down, huge debt. he same thing that's happening right now.

Totally unsubstantiated. Personal debt did rise, but that's because of low interest rates and better security on said debt.

[Aquatic]

How did it not work?

:lol:

[Anders]

Originally posted by NaplesX
ATTENTION.

I overreacted to the moving of the posts in this thread. For this I am sorry and I apologize to Anders for my attacks on him. I probably should have addressed him through PM as I asked him to do.

Sorry for the derailment. I will not post on this subject further.

POST OF THE (ELECTION-)YEAR :)

Not because I am involved (despite popular belief I couldn´t care less about my social status on a internet forum) but because its the first example I have seen since the primaries began of someone actually reflecting on what they wrote.

If we had ten times more posts like this perhaps AI would be a happier place.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders
POST OF THE (ELECTION-)YEAR :)

Not because I am involved (despite popular belief I couldn´t care less about my social status on a internet forum) but because its the first example I have seen since the primaries began of someone actually reflecting on what they wrote.

If we had ten times more posts like this perhaps AI would be a happier place.

All right, you two. You've both managed to derail this thread. This thread is locked:

http://www.microsoft.com/china/security/images/img-lock.gif

Now, where's that button that lets non-mods lock threads or delete posts? ;)

[giant]

Originally posted by Anders
If we had ten times more posts like this perhaps AI would be a happier place.
Actually, 10 times fewer of the posts that preceeded it would probably be the best solution.