or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Thank you Mr. Bunning
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thank you Mr. Bunning - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I feel like I need a stronger word than absurd here. What you're saying is absolutely asinine. You know very well that the ratio of CEO salaries to those of the average worker have shot through the roof in the last two decades. In fact, I'd say that this post of yours is rather hugely condescending. Ironic, huh? I though that was liberal territory? Unless there's a liberal deep down inside you trying to claw it's way out. There's always hope, right?




http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060621/

So what do you consider "balanced" on the graph you just posted? Was it balanced when they were only earning 24 times what others were making?

I'm just asking. Folks through out these nice platitudes and I can't ever think of a time where they were actually occurring.

Perhaps you think it condescending to ask for people to do more than just scream platitudes at other, and you are entitled to you opinion, but when people keep using utopian language, religious overtones, and most especially keep claiming there was some point where it was better and now it i worse, I'm going to keep asking for them to prove the prior utopia before they get to demand and steal to provide the future one.

We should do with that graph exactly what we did with the nice Obama graph. Let's just declare it supports whatever we want it to support without looking at the entire picture or context.

Gee look at the years when things started going wrong. Apparently the civil rights movement and giving 18 year olds the right to vote lead to massive income inequity.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So what do you consider "balanced" on the graph you just posted? Was it balanced when they were only earning 24 times what others were making?

I'm just asking. Folks through out these nice platitudes and I can't ever think of a time where they were actually occurring.

Perhaps you think it condescending to ask for people to do more than just scream platitudes at other, and you are entitled to you opinion, but when people keep using utopian language, religious overtones, and most especially keep claiming there was some point where it was better and now it i worse, I'm going to keep asking for them to prove the prior utopia before they get to demand and steal to provide the future one.

We should do with that graph exactly what we did with the nice Obama graph. Let's just declare it supports whatever we want it to support without looking at the entire picture or context.

Gee look at the years when things started going wrong. Apparently the civil rights movement and giving 18 year olds the right to vote lead to massive income inequity.

Actually it seems to coincide with with when Reagan took office and the modern conservative greed movement took off. How about we get it back to what it was before Reagan?

Also, it's not so incomprehensible to not know what exact number is completely fair but to see something ridiculous and call it so.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #43 of 94
So then 35 is greedy?

Give me a nice guess-stimate on the number. You can even give a range.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So then 35 is greedy?

Give me a nice guess-stimate on the number. You can even give a range.

Stop playing games. You get the point. Obviously a CEO earning even 100x the basic pay of his employees is the system well fucked. It doesn't matter to exactly what number it needs to come down, just that it does come down. And if it doesn't come down, we cannot claim that we don't understand why rich people pay a higher share of taxes.
post #45 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Stop playing games. You get the point. Obviously a CEO earning even 100x the basic pay of his employees is the system well fucked. It doesn't matter to exactly what number it needs to come down, just that it does come down.

The games are being played here by people who subjectively declare something to be wrong without providing any reason beyond a hand wave with "everyone knows it's too high" and "it's obvious" and "it just needs to be lower". It's all opinion. After all for one person 35:1 is too much for someone else 40:1 is okay. Do you have any objectively supportable reason why one ratio is better or worse than another? Or is it just because you think it's unfair? Unjust? Wrong?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Congratulations. You've just proven that the kids get free lunch and breakfast 180 days a year.

How does that make them hungry again?



It does not make them hungry but obese and gives them diabetes. In other words unproductive and mentally slow.
The portions and quality are controlled by accountants not nutritionists.
But this is a different issue.

Socialism is great when it is on your side of the argument, right T.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

It does not make them hungry but obese and gives them diabetes. In other words unproductive and mentally slow.
The portions and quality are controlled by accountants not nutritionists.
But this is a different issue.

Socialism is great when it is on your side of the argument, right T.

What?!? A government program that only makes things worse for those involved in it?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The games are being played here by people who subjectively declare something to be wrong without providing any reason beyond a hand wave with "everyone knows it's too high" and "it's obvious" and "it just needs to be lower". It's all opinion. After all for one person 35:1 is too much for someone else 40:1 is okay. Do you have any objectively supportable reason why one ratio is better or worse than another? Or is it just because you think it's unfair? Unjust? Wrong?

Yeah, well, sure. Everything is an opinion. But the opinion that a CEO earning 100x what his average employee earns is something wrong is not at all a hard opinion to understand.
post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, well, sure. Everything is an opinion.

Not true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But the opinion that a CEO earning 100x what his average employee earns is something wrong is not at all a hard opinion to understand.

I agree, it isn't hard to understand why some people don't like that ratio. But to move beyond that to drift into the territory that starts sounding like it is unequivocally and objectively wrong, then you have gone too far.

It could be that people who hold this opinion don't really know what a CEO does as compared to the average person in the organization and what value each produces. One thing most people fail to realize is that it is often more about leverage. The CEO has more leverage to create more value for an organization than the average worker does. Some do actually create it. Others do not. But the point is, the CEO is in a position to effect much more change (Good and bad) than the average worker. A decision or choice that Steve Jobs makes or dictates could end up making Apple another couple of hundred million dollars a year. This is much less likely the further down the organization you go.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Stop playing games. You get the point. Obviously a CEO earning even 100x the basic pay of his employees is the system well fucked. It doesn't matter to exactly what number it needs to come down, just that it does come down. And if it doesn't come down, we cannot claim that we don't understand why rich people pay a higher share of taxes.

As MJ also notes, declarations of something being wrong with no reasoning behind it is your opinion at this point. Read his very good reasoning below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The games are being played here by people who subjectively declare something to be wrong without providing any reason beyond a hand wave with "everyone knows it's too high" and "it's obvious" and "it just needs to be lower". It's all opinion. After all for one person 35:1 is too much for someone else 40:1 is okay. Do you have any objectively supportable reason why one ratio is better or worse than another? Or is it just because you think it's unfair? Unjust? Wrong?

Fantastic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

It does not make them hungry but obese and gives them diabetes. In other words unproductive and mentally slow.
The portions and quality are controlled by accountants not nutritionists.
But this is a different issue.

Socialism is great when it is on your side of the argument, right T.

When the declaration is people being hungry and I note a program that feeds them two meals a day for 180 days, it refutes the hunger point. You toss in the claim that the food must be bad, but how does that support government intervention when the government is the one doing wrong in your view here?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

When the declaration is people being hungry and I note a program that feeds them two meals a day for 180 days, it refutes the hunger point. You toss in the claim that the food must be bad, but how does that support government intervention when the government is the one doing wrong in your view here?

I followed my claim with:"But this is a different issue". I claim that the food served to these children is low quality, low nutrition food picked by accountants. NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IS BAD.

FACT: You are defending a socialist program to make your point.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #52 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I followed my claim with:"But this is a different issue". I claim that the food served to these children is low quality, low nutrition food picked by accountants. NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IS BAD.

But the program is a government-run program. It is the government who is using accountants rather than nutritionists to pick the food. So how do you escape the deduction that this government program is bad or at least badly executed? And, then, how do you make it not badly executed?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I followed my claim with:"But this is a different issue". I claim that the food served to these children is low quality, low nutrition food picked by accountants. NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IS BAD.

FACT: You are defending a socialist program to make your point.

My point wasn't to link to a qualification chart for free and reduced lunch to show how making a certain amount of money automatically makes one hungry. I asked for proof. The chart was what was provided. I simply noted that instead of proving hunger, it did the opposite. I'm still waiting for the proof for the claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But the program is a government-run program. It is the government who is using accountants rather than nutritionists to pick the food. So how do you escape the deduction that this government program is bad or at least badly executed? And, then, how do you make it not badly executed?

Well this is the intent game. The government by his definition has good intentions and so the actual results don't count.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

My point wasn't to link to a qualification chart for free and reduced lunch to show how making a certain amount of money automatically makes one hungry. I asked for proof. The chart was what was provided. I simply noted that instead of proving hunger, it did the opposite. I'm still waiting for the proof for the claim.



Well this is the intent game. The government by his definition has good intentions and so the actual results don't count.

Quote:
Well this is the intent game. The government by his definition has good intentions and so the actual results don't count

Kind of like invading Iraq eh what? But I'd imagine PPD would keep you from seeing that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 94
How 'bout this:

If YOU don't like what a corporation pays it's executives, then YOU don't buy their products!

IF most people agree with you, then that corporation will either go out of business (no customers) or change it's "evil ways" (to retain customers.)

No government intervention required. You only need for people to actually stand up for what they believe, rather than just ranting on an anonymous internet forum.

(This would also work on the minimum wage end of the pay scale.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

How 'bout this:

If YOU don't like what a corporation pays it's executives, then YOU don't buy their products!

IF most people agree with you, then that corporation will either go out of business (no customers) or change it's "evil ways" (to retain customers.)

No government intervention required. You only need for people to actually stand up for what they believe, rather than just ranting on an anonymous internet forum.

(This would also work on the minimum wage end of the pay scale.)

This is silly in so many ways.

Do all corporations sell consumer products?

Also, is economic activity the only sphere of human activity? If not, why would you expect that we can affect the world we live in solely by economic activity?
post #57 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

How 'bout this:

If YOU don't like what a corporation pays it's executives, then YOU don't buy their products!

IF most people agree with you, then that corporation will either go out of business (no customers) or change it's "evil ways" (to retain customers.)

No government intervention required. You only need for people to actually stand up for what they believe, rather than just ranting on an anonymous internet forum.

(This would also work on the minimum wage end of the pay scale.)

Or they pay their executives a dollar and then buy them a jet....

Or they don't pay their executives much salary which would be taxed at 35-38%+ and instead give them stock which is then sold and taxed at the much lower capital gains rate... (aka the Buffett argument)

Or they let the person run the corporation which doesn't pay them in money but allows them to control the money when it then leases them cars, jets, homes, etc...

I'm not doing any of this to knock you KOSH, but rather to help in making the point that looking a small piece of the picture on one chart really doesn't give us much understanding.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Or they pay their executives a dollar and then buy them a jet....

Or they don't pay their executives much salary which would be taxed at 35-38%+ and instead give them stock which is then sold and taxed at the much lower capital gains rate... (aka the Buffett argument)

Or they let the person run the corporation which doesn't pay them in money but allows them to control the money when it then leases them cars, jets, homes, etc...

I'm not doing any of this to knock you KOSH, but rather to help in making the point that looking a small piece of the picture on one chart really doesn't give us much understanding.

So what you're saying is that if anything, that chart vastly underestimates how egregious the corporate salary structure is these days. Thanks for the support.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #59 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

Do all corporations sell consumer products?

Yes.

They don't all sell "widgets"... but they have some sort of "product" that their customers "consume".

It may be a service... or a manufactured product... or a commodity... whatever... but without a product and a consumer, their is no "business".
(I avoided the word "corporation" there, because I'm assuming you mean a for-profit-business... I'm well aware that a person can create a "corporation" for just about anything, including their own life... but that's more of a tax-dodge or liability shield than what I think we are talking about here.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, well, sure. Everything is an opinion. But the opinion that a CEO earning 100x what his average employee earns is something wrong is not at all a hard opinion to understand.

No opinion is hard to understand. It just becomes hard to justify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So what you're saying is that if anything, that chart vastly underestimates how egregious the corporate salary structure is these days. Thanks for the support.

I'm simply noting that the money can flow in a multitude of ways and that looking at small piece will never give you the full puzzle.

The founders of Google work for a $1 of salary of year as does Steve Jobs. Do you feel better and feel like what they do is more fair since almost all their employees earn more salary than they do? Buffett earns $100,000 a year and has for several years now. Obviously he isn't pay for his get, the rather well known Indefensible out of his own salary.

Clearly no man is an island but how much wealth have most of these individuals created for all of us while you begrudge them their bit of it. Steve Jobs was indeed compensated almost $15 million last year. The company he founded though is now worth almost $200 BILLION.

Shouldn't the metric of what someone is compensated actually be tied to the wealth created in some fashion? It is sad that some folks can generate so little wealth but that isn't the fault of others. Even now unemployment is much higher, nearly 20% for those without a HS diploma while it is barely above 3% for those with a college degree.

Back to the thread topic, all Bunning wanted was an actual attempt at Paygo. People have to stop treating wealth as just some magic spell that is spoken and poof it appears. While telling that lie they are stealing earnings and wealth from future generations.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No opinion is hard to understand. It just becomes hard to justify.



I'm simply noting that the money can flow in a multitude of ways and that looking at small piece will never give you the full puzzle.

The founders of Google work for a $1 of salary of year as does Steve Jobs. Do you feel better and feel like what they do is more fair since almost all their employees earn more salary than they do? Buffett earns $100,000 a year and has for several years now. Obviously he isn't pay for his get, the rather well known Indefensible out of his own salary.

Clearly no man is an island but how much wealth have most of these individuals created for all of us while you begrudge them their bit of it. Steve Jobs was indeed compensated almost $15 million last year. The company he founded though is now worth almost $200 BILLION.

Shouldn't the metric of what someone is compensated actually be tied to the wealth created in some fashion? It is sad that some folks can generate so little wealth but that isn't the fault of others. Even now unemployment is much higher, nearly 20% for those without a HS diploma while it is barely above 3% for those with a college degree.

Back to the thread topic, all Bunning wanted was an actual attempt at Paygo. People have to stop treating wealth as just some magic spell that is spoken and poof it appears. While telling that lie they are stealing earnings and wealth from future generations.

Congratulations. You've shown there are ways of hiding how much the top executives are paid. Are you really so obtuse as to think that I feel hiding the compensation is OK because it drives down the ratio I discussed earlier? Your arguments make less and less sense by the day.

Steve Jobs alone didn't make Apple worth $200 billion. He needed his employees as much as his employees needed him. So yes, he should be compensated more as he does run things and has more responsibility. However, throw the employees a bone, too. There are plenty of bones to go around.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Yes.

They don't all sell "widgets"... but they have some sort of "product" that their customers "consume".

It may be a service... or a manufactured product... or a commodity... whatever... but without a product and a consumer, their is no "business".
(I avoided the word "corporation" there, because I'm assuming you mean a for-profit-business... I'm well aware that a person can create a "corporation" for just about anything, including their own life... but that's more of a tax-dodge or liability shield than what I think we are talking about here.)

A product that is sold to a customer to be "consumed" is not necessarily a "consumer product." There is a conventional definition of "consumer product". It means final products sold to individuals, and excludes intermediate products sold on factor markets or services rendered to firms. An individual cannot "vote" on firms that produce non-consumer products and services through their purchasing decisions, except indirectly through their downstream firms that sell products and services directly to individuals. Surely you are not asking people to also take all these upstream firms into account when evaluating their purchasing decisions?
post #63 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Yes.

They don't all sell "widgets"... but they have some sort of "product" that their customers "consume".

It may be a service... or a manufactured product... or a commodity... whatever... but without a product and a consumer, their is no "business".
(I avoided the word "corporation" there, because I'm assuming you mean a for-profit-business... I'm well aware that a person can create a "corporation" for just about anything, including their own life... but that's more of a tax-dodge or liability shield than what I think we are talking about here.)

So... buying and trading of business is not business. Right.

Tell me what consumer products Berkshire Hathaway produces. Go ahead.
post #64 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Congratulations. You've shown there are ways of hiding how much the top executives are paid. Are you really so obtuse as to think that I feel hiding the compensation is OK because it drives down the ratio I discussed earlier? Your arguments make less and less sense by the day.

I'm merely asking the question because folks such as yourself fixate on a point but don't appear to understand it nor will you really address it. You just have declared it bad and want it to now be good without stating what bad and good happen to be.

Quote:
Steve Jobs alone didn't make Apple worth $200 billion. He needed his employees as much as his employees needed him. So yes, he should be compensated more as he does run things and has more responsibility. However, throw the employees a bone, too. There are plenty of bones to go around.

The point is that Jobs obviously is going to make many, many times more than an Apple store employee as an example. Even if you were tremendously generousness and paid someone $20 an hour for handing out computers at the retail level, that comes to $40,000 a year. Obviously most retail employees aren't being paid at that rate so half that for reality and you get what the lowest pai full time employees are likely making. At a ratio of 50 that would mean Jobs is limited to $1,000,000 in total compensation a year (creates a better understanding than just salary) for being the founder and irreplaceable CEO of a $200 billion dollar company.

The employees get thrown bones commiserate to the wealth they help produce. Someone handing out iMac's isn't going to produce wealth on the level Jobs and his very well paid execute team are going to do. What would it cost to replace Jobs and who on his team should go due to lack of desire to pay them? The face handing you that computer or iPhone could change next week the retail level and almost no one would ever give a damn. Do the same at the top here and people would justifiably go berserk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So... buying and trading of business is not business. Right.

Tell me what consumer products Berkshire Hathaway produces. Go ahead.


Berkshire Hathaway owns and manages tons of companies that produce consumer products.
They don't just make stock trades. Inform yourself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Berkshire Hathaway owns and manages tons of companies that produce consumer products.
They don't just make stock trades. Inform yourself.

I'm quite informed, thanks. None of the products are produced by Berkshire Hathaway. They are produced by companies owned by BH. The business of BH is 100% buying, development and selling of companies. The consumer doesn't see the business that BH is engaged in. The consumer only sees what those sub-units produce.
post #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm quite informed, thanks. None of the products are produced by Berkshire Hathaway. They are produced by companies owned by BH. The business of BH is 100% buying, development and selling of companies. The consumer doesn't see the business that BH is engaged in. The consumer only sees what those sub-units produce.

Oh, for crying out loud. How about the word "customer"? Businesses offer services, products, etc. to their customers.

Customers can be individual people, businesses, a collection of businesses, etc.

It's not a very difficult concept to grasp.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #67 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Oh, for crying out loud. How about the word "customer"? Businesses offer services, products, etc. to their customers.

Customers can be individual people, businesses, a collection of businesses, etc.

It's not a very difficult concept to grasp.

Yes, but consumers can't be. Consumers are consumers. BH's customers aren't consumers. Reread the last 10 posts. Go ahead.

King claimed that all companies produce consumer products.
post #68 of 94
Anyone know who wrote this?

Quote:
What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.

Quote:
But thats not how Republicans see it. Heres what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunnings position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief doesnt create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.

In Mr. Kyls view, then, what we really need to worry about right now with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression is whether were reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, thats a bizarre point of view but then, I dont live in Mr. Kyls universe.

And the difference between the two universes isnt just intellectual, its also moral.


And anyone know who wrote this?

Quote:
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 workers incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of Eurosclerosis, the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Anyone know who wrote this?

And anyone know who wrote this?

Paul Krugman.

Only someone who doesn't know any economics sees those two statements as contradictory. The European unemployment example is used in textbooks to explain long run trends in unemployment and how policy affects it. When he talks about unemployment benefits reducing unemployment, he's talking about responses to short-run, business-cycle phenomena, specifically a recession and a drop in aggregate demand. Both are well established theoretically. Here's the full quote

Quote:
What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. Thats because the economys problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.
post #70 of 94
By the way, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I found where you got this from. This is one of the most egregious examples of a deliberate, disingenuous misrepresentation of facts that I've seen. I had not expected that publication to sink so low so quickly but now I know better.
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm quite informed, thanks. None of the products are produced by Berkshire Hathaway. They are produced by companies owned by BH. The business of BH is 100% buying, development and selling of companies. The consumer doesn't see the business that BH is engaged in. The consumer only sees what those sub-units produce.

Being informed by made up self defined words doesn't add anything to the discussion. BH does partially own certain companies and it is fine to see it as a mere holding company in those instances but the wholly-owned subsidiaries are considered part of the parent company and are controlled by the parent company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, but consumers can't be. Consumers are consumers. BH's customers aren't consumers. Reread the last 10 posts. Go ahead.

King claimed that all companies produce consumer products.

Yes he should go back and inform himself with regard to made up crap that has no basis in reality.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

Paul Krugman.

Correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

Only someone who doesn't know any economics sees those two statements as contradictory.

Incorrect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

Both are well established theoretically. Here's the full quote

Incorrect.


At least you would be an average batter in the major leagues.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #73 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Incorrect.




Incorrect.


At least you would be an average batter in the major leagues.

Incorrect.

See? I can do it too. What an amazing and fully credible argument.
post #74 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

Incorrect.

See? I can do it too. What an amazing and fully credible argument.

Sorry. I figured since you actually believe the Keynesian short-run counter cyclical aggregate demand "stimulus" theory is "well established" (it is in one sense, that's true, but not in the sense you mean it to be) meant I was dealing with someone immune to reason and logic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #75 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

King claimed that all companies produce consumer products.

Good god man!... can you take nothing in context?... I SAID they don't necessarily have to produce a "widget"... I specifically included the word "services".
Berkshire Hathaway has customers... they are Berkshire Hathaway's "consumer"... BH provides a "service" to its "customers". BH's "customers" consume the services it provides.

Must I parse every single word I type through the dictionary of your choosing?
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #76 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sorry. I figured since you actually believe the Keynesian short-run counter cyclical aggregate demand "stimulus" theory is "well established" (it is in one sense, that's true, but not in the sense you mean it to be) meant I was dealing with someone immune to reason and logic.

Actually, I mean it just in that sense. I don't mean to get into an argument over Keynesian theory. I was pointing out that the statements aren't contradictory. Even if you do dispute the validity of the theory, it does not make the statements contradictory. Well, I guess they may be contradictory if you believe there's a single, coherent, true economic theory under which those statements are incompatible. But let's face it, that's pretty silly.
post #77 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Good god man!... can you take nothing in context?... I SAID they don't necessarily have to produce a "widget"... I specifically included the word "services".
Berkshire Hathaway has customers... they are Berkshire Hathaway's "consumer"... BH provides a "service" to its "customers". BH's "customers" consume the services it provides.

Must I parse every single word I type through the dictionary of your choosing?

You are avoiding the question. How are we, as individual consumers, suppose to influence companies which supply only to firms, through our purchasing decisions?
post #78 of 94
When the dictionary of his chosing is the "Tonton crap I made up edition," then yes, I think you will have to do that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

You are avoiding the question. How are we, as individual consumers, suppose to influence companies which supply only to firms, through our purchasing decisions?

Letters to the editor type campaigns, boycott efforts, etc. Public pressure is a powerful incentive.
post #80 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Letters to the editor type campaigns, boycott efforts, etc. Public pressure is a powerful incentive.

Exactly. You use means beyond purchasing decisions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Thank you Mr. Bunning