Simple but powerful speech Dr Carson delivers. Well worth the time. Watch it.
You beat me to it!
Obama does not even bother to hide his hatred.
Michelle looked up to the doctor ( women are hypergamic - Obama watch out she might leave you for a real man ).
The Wall Street Journal headlines “Ben Carson for President”:
And Carson did this without a teleprompter.
Sadly, we are at the point of no return for this locked and loaded
system of socialized medicine, and where was the fucking forethought
By this Dr. to the masses when it was needed?
Fuckin’ shit…Why wasn’t this solution proposed by St. Reagan in the 1980’s as well?
Reagan was the one that warned about socialized medicine back in the doo wop fuckin’
50’s via a Record Album distributed to the white bread suburbs to ladies that looked
like Beaver Cleaver’s hot assed mother, huddling and listening to it during their
half hammered get-togethers on Bridge night.
That fuckin’ half assed B-movie actor only warned about the dangers of socialized medicine
without a iota of forethought and creative solutions that could have avoided and sidetracked
this slippery slope to where we’re at now.
The Doctor’s speech is too late, the old peeps at those meetings that screamed and yelled
across the country opposing this have already had their say, that was telecast as well…and the Health Care Bill passed anyway, Obama was re-elected, and there is nothing anyone can do about it now.
Stay healthy my friends.
The law of diminishing marginal utility > old myths.
Though, I like what he said about health care.
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.
What does this have to do with Obama? Carson is talking about ideas that weren’t acted upon by any of Obama’s predecessors. Partisan bickering – Carson probably voted for Obama.
And JEATON starts some of the best threads in all of T-Nation but they consistently get little reaction or attention. I think it says a lot about the posters that frequent the forum, PWI particularly.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
And JEATON starts some of the best threads in all of T-Nation but they consistently get little reaction or attention. I think it says a lot about the posters that frequent the forum, PWI particularly. [/quote]
I had the same thought.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]
And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]
And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]
In your mind.
Diminishing marginal utility is an economics concept. Let us say that someone with the ability to reason with specific detail and on point, instead of making generalized-but-wrong philosophical assertion decided to give a specific example. We could and should, he says, seize one trillion dollars from the top 100 wealthiest individuals (imagining for the sake of argument that their average net worth is 10 billion dollars) and distribute it equally among, say, the 250 million Americans with the lowest wealth, thereby giving them $4000 each on a one-time basis. This would be good, he argues, because the marginal utility of those dollars is greater. The persons with little to no wealth will see a “bigger difference” from the dollars than would those who created the wealth by building businesses and so forth - the most common way of acquiring great wealth. So take from the rich and give to the poor: marginal utility is increased.
Because this person had the ability to recognize scope and limitation of his argument, there would be validity to at least part of what he is saying. He’d have a reason why there would be a good aspect to the action. But the existence of a good aspect to an action does not make it a good action.
Let’s not yet consider the morality of forcibly taking from those who earn to give to those who have not, for no stated reason other than those who have not will enjoy the money more, or otherwise have greater utility. Let’s simply look at practicality.
What happens when you give most people $4K? Is it that they never earned $4K along the way? In most cases they have earned many tens of thousands of dollars over time, even often into six figures. But they have no wealth because they have no net assets, as they spent as fast as they got. If they had earned another $4k two or three years ago, they’d have spent it and would still have no net assets. If we seize this trillion in assets and give to them, in a short period of time they’ll have nothing to show for it. Oh, they had the greater marginal utility of doing all the things that people with no wealth do, above and beyond what is actually needed to live, and the great majority of them do have disposable income beyond what is actually needed. With this $4K one-time benefit from seizing this money, ah, now they can do more of those things. Some fun times out, some non-durable goods that they’ll like to buy. The same, but a bit more of it. Greater marginal utility, don’cha know. Better.
However, the question being addressed – unequal wealth “distribution” – will not change. It is unlikely that after even a short period of time, their assets will be increased an iota.
Ah, but we don’t have to do it that way: For example, we could tax the stock ownership of those past some excessive (we will allow you to define excessive, as you know what is “just,” undoubtedly by application of some sophomoric “thinking”) and transfer say 90% of their stock ownership to the Federal government. Won’t that help fix Obama spending $11 for every $7 of revenue? Won’t that at least make a big dent in the government’s self-caused financial problems?
Well, if the government sells the stock, that could provide a short term cash injection. Probably not enough to cover the deficit for even the year that it is done, especially as it would depress stock prices to sell all this stock. Surely it would be nothing but an immediate thing, gone in very little time – you may not yet be aware that a year is not very much time. So perhaps the government might hold the stock, thus not depressing stock prices, and “the people” could benefit from the dividends for years, even decades, to come.
Say the dividends are 5%. That would come to $50 billion per year. It would come to about the amount of pork in the Sandy relief bill.
Well worth seizing people’s wealth. Undoubtedly you’ve proven it, with your attempted philosophizing.
Ultimately, however, there are those that believe that forcibly taking from those who have produced value and thereby gotten paid for it, and giving to those who produce far less of value, or nothing of value to anyone, simply because the poorer will have more utility from it - that is their Bible myth.
But don’t try to claim the above argument as proof that such theft is moral or just.
Most likely every thief thinks he will enjoy what he steals more so than the person who earned the thing.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]
And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]
In your mind.
Diminishing marginal utility is an economics concept. Let us say that someone with the ability to reason with specific detail and on point, instead of making generalized-but-wrong philosophical assertion decided to give a specific example. We could and should, he says, seize one trillion dollars from the top 100 wealthiest individuals (imagining for the sake of argument that their average net worth is 10 billion dollars) and distribute it equally among, say, the 250 million Americans with the lowest wealth, thereby giving them $4000 each on a one-time basis. This would be good, he argues, because the marginal utility of those dollars is greater. The persons with little to no wealth will see a “bigger difference” from the dollars than would those who created the wealth by building businesses and so forth - the most common way of acquiring great wealth. So take from the rich and give to the poor: marginal utility is increased.
Because this person had the ability to recognize scope and limitation of his argument, there would be validity to at least part of what he is saying. He’d have a reason why there would be a good aspect to the action. But the existence of a good aspect to an action does not make it a good action.
Let’s not yet consider the morality of forcibly taking from those who earn to give to those who have not, for no stated reason other than those who have not will enjoy the money more, or otherwise have greater utility. Let’s simply look at practicality.
What happens when you give most people $4K? Is it that they never earned $4K along the way? In most cases they have earned many tens of thousands of dollars over time, even often into six figures. But they have no wealth because they have no net assets, as they spent as fast as they got. If they had earned another $4k two or three years ago, they’d have spent it and would still have no net assets. If we seize this trillion in assets and give to them, in a short period of time they’ll have nothing to show for it. Oh, they had the greater marginal utility of doing all the things that people with no wealth do, above and beyond what is actually needed to live, and the great majority of them do have disposable income beyond what is actually needed. With this $4K one-time benefit from seizing this money, ah, now they can do more of those things. Some fun times out, some non-durable goods that they’ll like to buy. The same, but a bit more of it. Greater marginal utility, don’cha know. Better.
However, the question being addressed – unequal wealth “distribution” – will not change. It is unlikely that after even a short period of time, their assets will be increased an iota.
Ah, but we don’t have to do it that way: For example, we could tax the stock ownership of those past some excessive (we will allow you to define excessive, as you know what is “just,” undoubtedly by application of some sophomoric “thinking”) and transfer say 90% of their stock ownership to the Federal government. Won’t that help fix Obama spending $11 for every $7 of revenue? Won’t that at least make a big dent in the government’s self-caused financial problems?
Well, if the government sells the stock, that could provide a short term cash injection. Probably not enough to cover the deficit for even the year that it is done, especially as it would depress stock prices to sell all this stock. Surely it would be nothing but an immediate thing, gone in very little time – you may not yet be aware that a year is not very much time. So perhaps the government might hold the stock, thus not depressing stock prices, and “the people” could benefit from the dividends for years, even decades, to come.
Say the dividends are 5%. That would come to $50 billion per year. It would come to about the amount of pork in the Sandy relief bill.
Well worth seizing people’s wealth. Undoubtedly you’ve proven it, with your attempted philosophizing.
Ultimately, however, there are those that believe that forcibly taking from those who have produced value and thereby gotten paid for it, and giving to those who produce far less of value, or nothing of value to anyone, simply because the poorer will have more utility from it - that is their Bible myth.
But don’t try to claim the above argument as proof that such theft is moral or just.
Most likely every thief thinks he will enjoy what he steals more so than the person who earned the thing.
[/quote]
It is very clear that you don’t understand my meaning. Wealth redistribution has nothing to do with it. Look up the law of diminishing marginal utility and think about how it relates to a flat tax.
What are you talking about Alpha…
The guy who has a job earning 40K is still creating value, as is the guy earning 200K. In a flat tax the 40K person is paying 4K while the other guy is paying 20K – 4K means more to the lower earner than 20K to the 200K earner.
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]
The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]
The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.[/quote]
This is not as simple as you might think. To whom does the lion’s share of the benefit of a prohibitive military go, for example–to he has much, or to he who has little? The same question can be asked with regard to police forces and fire brigades and investments in infrastructure and energy security. And to whom does the majority of the benefit of universal literacy brought on by public education go, to Mark Zuckerberg or to the farmhand barely paying rent?
More importantly, your point does not stand with regard to most American workers. If you took an extra ten percent of my best friend’s income, it would crush him. If you took an extra ten percent of Mitt Romney’s, it would not crush him. That is the law of decreasing marginal utility, and he takes nothing more from the government than does Mitt Romney (assuming that he ends up taking more out of SS than he pays in [and that is far from certain], the greater value that Mitt Romney derives from government service as outlined in the previous paragraph will at least negate this).
Which does not mean I’m a huge fan of high taxes or socialism. But this whole “flat tax is the only fair structure” simplistic bullshit is just that. I am almost certain that our resident accountant agrees with me on that point.
The guy paying a dollar gets the same military, the same roads, the same school system, and the same fire department as the guy paying a hundred million. Just because the billionaire (or his family) was smart enough to accrue wealth doesn’t mean he gets special government services.
[quote]doogie wrote:
The guy paying a dollar gets the same military, the same roads, the same school system, and the same fire department as the guy paying a hundred million. Just because the billionaire (or his family) was smart enough to accrue wealth doesn’t mean he gets special government services.[/quote]
It is not what you get, but what you do with it.
Show me a lottery winner that has increased his winnings.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]
And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]
In your mind.
Diminishing marginal utility is an economics concept. Let us say that someone with the ability to reason with specific detail and on point, instead of making generalized-but-wrong philosophical assertion decided to give a specific example. We could and should, he says, seize one trillion dollars from the top 100 wealthiest individuals (imagining for the sake of argument that their average net worth is 10 billion dollars) and distribute it equally among, say, the 250 million Americans with the lowest wealth, thereby giving them $4000 each on a one-time basis. This would be good, he argues, because the marginal utility of those dollars is greater. The persons with little to no wealth will see a “bigger difference” from the dollars than would those who created the wealth by building businesses and so forth - the most common way of acquiring great wealth. So take from the rich and give to the poor: marginal utility is increased.
Because this person had the ability to recognize scope and limitation of his argument, there would be validity to at least part of what he is saying. He’d have a reason why there would be a good aspect to the action. But the existence of a good aspect to an action does not make it a good action.
Let’s not yet consider the morality of forcibly taking from those who earn to give to those who have not, for no stated reason other than those who have not will enjoy the money more, or otherwise have greater utility. Let’s simply look at practicality.
What happens when you give most people $4K? Is it that they never earned $4K along the way? In most cases they have earned many tens of thousands of dollars over time, even often into six figures. But they have no wealth because they have no net assets, as they spent as fast as they got. If they had earned another $4k two or three years ago, they’d have spent it and would still have no net assets. If we seize this trillion in assets and give to them, in a short period of time they’ll have nothing to show for it. Oh, they had the greater marginal utility of doing all the things that people with no wealth do, above and beyond what is actually needed to live, and the great majority of them do have disposable income beyond what is actually needed. With this $4K one-time benefit from seizing this money, ah, now they can do more of those things. Some fun times out, some non-durable goods that they’ll like to buy. The same, but a bit more of it. Greater marginal utility, don’cha know. Better.
However, the question being addressed – unequal wealth “distribution” – will not change. It is unlikely that after even a short period of time, their assets will be increased an iota.
Ah, but we don’t have to do it that way: For example, we could tax the stock ownership of those past some excessive (we will allow you to define excessive, as you know what is “just,” undoubtedly by application of some sophomoric “thinking”) and transfer say 90% of their stock ownership to the Federal government. Won’t that help fix Obama spending $11 for every $7 of revenue? Won’t that at least make a big dent in the government’s self-caused financial problems?
Well, if the government sells the stock, that could provide a short term cash injection. Probably not enough to cover the deficit for even the year that it is done, especially as it would depress stock prices to sell all this stock. Surely it would be nothing but an immediate thing, gone in very little time – you may not yet be aware that a year is not very much time. So perhaps the government might hold the stock, thus not depressing stock prices, and “the people” could benefit from the dividends for years, even decades, to come.
Say the dividends are 5%. That would come to $50 billion per year. It would come to about the amount of pork in the Sandy relief bill.
Well worth seizing people’s wealth. Undoubtedly you’ve proven it, with your attempted philosophizing.
Ultimately, however, there are those that believe that forcibly taking from those who have produced value and thereby gotten paid for it, and giving to those who produce far less of value, or nothing of value to anyone, simply because the poorer will have more utility from it - that is their Bible myth.
But don’t try to claim the above argument as proof that such theft is moral or just.
Most likely every thief thinks he will enjoy what he steals more so than the person who earned the thing.
[/quote]
In rare moments I have the clarity of thought and reason to address a point with the skill you displayed above. Too rare. Thank you for putting in the time and effort.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]
The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.[/quote]
This is not as simple as you might think. To whom does the lion’s share of the benefit of a prohibitive military go, for example–to he has much, or to he who has little? The same question can be asked with regard to police forces and fire brigades and investments in infrastructure and energy security. And to whom does the majority of the benefit of universal literacy brought on by public education go, to Mark Zuckerberg or to the farmhand barely paying rent?
More importantly, your point does not stand with regard to most American workers. If you took an extra ten percent of my best friend’s income, it would crush him. If you took an extra ten percent of Mitt Romney’s, it would not crush him. That is the law of decreasing marginal utility, and he takes nothing more from the government than does Mitt Romney (assuming that he ends up taking more out of SS than he pays in [and that is far from certain], the greater value that Mitt Romney derives from government service as outlined in the previous paragraph will at least negate this).
Which does not mean I’m a huge fan of high taxes or socialism. But this whole “flat tax is the only fair structure” simplistic bullshit is just that. I am almost certain that our resident accountant agrees with me on that point.
[/quote]
I think beans supports flat or consumpption taxes. maybe he will chime in here and set us straight.