Fiscal Cliff

gatorfan wrote:

Milton Friedman was brilliant. Here's my favorite clip of him mopping the floor with that edgit Phil Donahue.

Somewhere there's footage of him during one of his lecture series dealing with a petulant young Michael Moore - about 300 lbs lighter, clean shaven, about Biggs' age.

Birilliant... that he was. And unlike Keynes, Friedman had a firm grasp on reality - not an idealist belief that government would only tax and spend when necessary, rather than whenever it suited their political/ideological purposes.

Free to Choose was a great series and I think was brilliant in bringing economics to simple terms just about any adult could understand.

My favorite Friedman would have to be his explaining the fallacy of the "tax the rich" ideology so many buy into today, although he called it the "no free lunch myth":



Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff... we have Obama demanding he be given the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling as he sees fit. That separation of powers thing being such an annoyance and all. And there's Boehner, offering $800 billion in new taxes, now raising himself to a trillion.

Boehner should pass a bill dropping the tax rate on the lowest three tax levels, leave the top two rates at what they currently are, send the bill off to the Senate and Obama, and then go home for the holidays. Let Obama and Harry Reid throw out tax cuts for the lowest three tax brackets and then claim they're for the little guy if they want to.

But Boehner won't do that... and some here would think of him as a conservative.

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

I think it is you who has been out of a body of higher level education for too long. because so far, your only "evidence" to back up your claim is "that's what my dad did". clearly you have no idea of how science works today my friend. science needs FACTS and DATA. your claim maybe has a place in a fairy tale but nowhere else.

Did you ever look at any FACTS before you make any of your claims?

Well then let me tell you that as little as 1 gallon of motor oil can contaminate 1 million gallons of fresh water? that as little as a few parts per million are already poisonous to animals (including us) and plants?

Of course that is all nonsense right! psh I wont let science tell me what is right or wrong. I will just do what my father did. He must've known. btw, did you know that when uranium was first discovered, the rich used it everywhere because of its nice shiny green properties? they would put it on plates, on clothes, buttons you name it. too bad the women working on these would rarely get old and die of cancer as they would dip their brush first in uranium and then lick it with their tongue to get better brush strokes? ah well hey! they didn't know better.

the sad thing is, we now do know better. and some people still think that what their dad did must've been right, well because they did it that way!

and clearly you are not aware of scales my friend. many chemicals and pollutants are poisonous at levels of ppm and even ppt (part per trillion). now where is that scale of yours gone? how much air/water/whatever does just 1 million tonne of just ONE type of these chemicals pollute? now go look at the figures, before you make any other out of the air claims. get your calculator out, and do some math!

Quote :

Quote:
1. sorry for not using all the correct terminology,

You should be sorry.

statements like that just show that you are ignorant and arrogant. the real question is which of the two you are more. now, go out there, learn two other languages to a level where you can read, write, and speak fluently WITHOUT an accent and then maybe we will talk again. I don't think I'd ever hear from you again because you clearly have no idea what it takes to learn a language properly. And while you're at it, go back to school. The rule of thumb is out. Today we work in µm. claims like my father did it, so it must be fine, will get you nowhere.


also let me tell you, that you come across a bit of an extremist. and extremes are never good. neither in one direction, nor in the other. it is always a center line somewhere that is the best. maybe you should open your mind up a bit?

also learn how to pay attention to what you read. because so far you seem to only see what you want to see written, not what is actually written.

Quote :

I'm having a difficult time believing your professors' political views don't color their academic views. Particularly when they apparently took pains to tell you government regulation is good for industry, but seem to have missed pointing out how much government regulations stifle innovation, creativity, and technology.

what did I say again? do I need to remind you? look how you have just infiltrated that word "good" in there even though I said

Quote :

again, saying that certain laws that are imposed cause firms to invest and research in certain direction, has in my view, nothing to do with political opinion. and again, maybe you are not reading correctly into what I am saying, (or I am not saying it clear enough), but of course development is not by any means only driven by laws. it's a small part, but nonetheless it is a part which can and has pushed firms to take certain routes and to rethink about certain processes.

. huh what? You can't find the word good in there? ha funny, neither can I.

pretty sure no one here has said that obama should be able to raise the debt ceiling to his liking. or that making more debt is a good idea. I sure haven't said it. however what you have said is that you would like to dump your oil in your backyard. and no matter what your political views are, no matter how extreme to one side or the other, anyone who makes such claims clearly has no effin idea what he's talking about. so maybe you should catch up with some reading in your free time.

also, let me give you a suggestion. there is a difference between attacking someones view or attacking them as a person. because when discussing different views it is perfectly fine to attack their view, heck that what you're supposed to do. but attacking the person only weakens your argument. maybe you have run out of good things to say, so you will just attack the person, instead of their claim. that's some weak technique friend, and doesn't come across very well. it actually does more damage to you than to anyone else. maybe you should think about that

Jager, thanks for that video. The faces on the audience were priceless.

Here is the clip of Friedman bitch slapping Michael Moore (if that's really him?). Look how dumb and self righteous Moore was even at that age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

gatorfan wrote:

Jager, thanks for that video. The faces on the audience were priceless.

Kind of sad rather than priceless really - a snapshot of the dumbing down of America. How many years ago was that? And now more than ever before people think more government is the answer, because of course the government is so incredibly efficient. We're accelerating down the slope of financial ruin, and people keep demanding more government, more government restrictions, and more government spending - not less. And of course, the government can promise us even more, because somehow or other "the rich" (or at least some other guy) can get stuck with AND be able to afford to pay the bill for all our goodies. We can't explain how it will work, it is just an article of faith we cling to while cheering it on.

Quote :

Here is the clip of Friedman bitch slapping Michael Moore (if that's really him?). Look how dumb and self righteous Moore was even at that age.

Michael Moore is a sterling example of any argument in favour of abortion. He and Obama are brothers under different mothers, equal in both their lack of honesty and morals.

Friedman's main failing was presuming you could have a rational, open minded discussion with outraged youngsters who thought they had all the angles figured out despite still living at home under Mom & Dad's roof, in an existence where somebody else was paying the bills.

Of course, he made the same mistake with respect to morons, people who vote for a living instead of work for a living, and socialist demagogues. So here we are, decades later, with the Occupy Wall Street leeches and their sympathizers assuming they deserve a cut of somebody else's labour despite not having worked to earn a penny of it. And of course, an ever increasing percentage of the population expecting and demanding their "entitlements", and assuming "the rich" are capable of paying their bills for them.

If I had kids, I'd probably cry for what they're going to inherit as a society. Today, $.42 of every dollar will go to just servicing the debt - what will it be when they're taxpayers? Because sooner or later, aside from the freedom and liberty lost under government like this, the bills WILL have to be paid. And EVERYBODY is going to pay, one way or the other. Except the rich who at least can just pack their bags and move, and those privileged few with special exemptions - like politicians who, for example, maintain their special health care plans instead of having to get their health care through Obamacare which they inflicted on the rest of us.

It's generational theft, nothing less. Yes, many of the young are supporters of it, but it is still generational theft. I'm tempted to argue we have a duty to try and protect them from their youthful ignorance, but at adulthood only you are responsible for your choices. You know, personal accountability and all that.

Meanwhile, what's going on with the convex fiscal slope we're accelerating down? Well, Boehner has the support of Republicans, whether through bullying or whatever means, to concede to our Marxist president that the rich need to be punitively taxed to increase their already disportionately large "fair share". Under Boehner, the Republicans have abandoned principle to join the Democrats in class warfare - in a republic that is supposed to be classless. It's like that old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she'll have sex with him if he pays her a million dollars. She says "sure". He says, well I don't have a million dollars, how about fifty dollars. She screams, what, you think I'm some kind of whore? His reply is that they've already established what she is; all they're doing is negotiating the price. Boehner's negotiating the price - most of the time, with himself.

Boehner's "Plan B" Spending Reduction Act bill he's ordering Republicans to pass in the House tonight does not contain one single spending cut. Nor were any proposed amendments allowed to the bill, ensuring conservatives in the house couldn't propose changes. In fact, it increases government spending - there's not a penny in spending reduction despite the title. Should the Republicans under Boehner be renamed the "We Don't Tax Quite Everybody Like the Democrats Party"?

So Boehner has led the Republicans into abandoning principle, in exchange for what? The President's vague promises of agreeing to "meaningful" spending cuts at some unspecified point in the future? Who even gets to decide what's "meaningful" - the President? Reagan fell for those Democrat promises in exchange for taxation in the past and the Democrats never delivered their side of the deal once they got what they wanted. Boehner was around then - he didn't learn anything from witnessing that? And his excuse for abandoning principle is? Well... he claims that at least he protected most Americans. Pretty weak relativism at the best.

If memory serves me correctly, all these "tax the rich" additional taxes will run the government for EIGHT WHOLE DAYS. Doesn't do anything to pay for the government the other 357 days of the year . And doesn't do anything to pay down one penny of the national debt and the daily (hourly?) accumulating interest on that massive debt. But apparently we're not supposed to discuss that fact, nor the fact we're now spending something like 135% of our GDP under Obama? Why are Republicans - in defense of what is supposed to be a republican form of government - not hammering on that over and over and over again. Because Boehner is only different from Obama in degree, not in principle?

I certainly can see why you chose the "third party" option in the last election with how the RINOs have so firmly shackled the Republican Party conservatives and put RINO idealogy in place and insulated from conservatives. I just see the "third party" route as an absolute guarantee that constitutional conservatives will never again be able to influence federal governance. That, and the fact that libertarian candidates resulted in Montana sending another Democrat to join Max Baucus in the Senate, not a Republican who lost the majority of the votes that went to the libertarian.

If Boehner did have any principle, he'd drop the bottom two or three tax brackets to protect the middle class Obama keeps saying shouldn't pay for the financial problem, leave the top two tax brackets untouched, pass that legislation, and then hand it off to Harry Reid and Obama to do with whatever they wanted to. He must have figured out by now that you simply cannot negotiate in good faith with a Marxist demagogue who wants to fundamentally change America in the most radical fashion imaginable - without using the amendment process provided in the Constitution to legitimately achieve that change.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I have to go waste some time trying to illuminate the minds of some of our young eco-warriors.

Well! Whaddya know!

Boehner has spent most of the time since the election purging conservative Republicans from committees and any other position of influence. He appeared to be successful in ethnically cleansing the House of conservative, constitutional influence. Some pretty blatant threats of what would happen to those who did not "get your asses in line" behind him, and vote as Boehner ordered were laid out.

The man who seemed weak and ineffectual in opposing Obama seemed to have demonstrated his ability to assume iron fisted control of Republicans in the House.

So the Plan B vote was to be tonight - Boehner's plan to go along with Obama and raise taxes. Arms were twisted, threats made, favours offered for votes. Boehner and Cantor both predicted it was a done deal that the legislation would pass.

But whaddya know? The Republicans revolted against Boehner's orders on how they'd vote, despite all the threats and examples of what would happen to those who didn't "get your asses in line" and vote as Boehner directed. Representing the people who voted them in, and their promises not to raise taxes, not the Speaker's interests... how dare they!

So Boehner has lost both the power position he had and the security it gave him. If he had simply passed a bill lowering tax brackets the middle class falls into and left the rest as they are now, he could have thrown that to Harry Reid and Obama and said "raise them again if you want" and went on Christmas vacation. Instead, he tried this tax increase crap, abandoning principle for participation in class warfare.

The power position on this now swings to Obama. He can wait until after January 1st when everybody's taxes go up. Then Obama can do what Boehner could have and should have. He'll send Boehner a bill that cuts the newly increased tax brackets affecting the middle class back, add tax increases for the wealthy, leave out anything having to do with cuts in spending. He'll challenge Boehner to vote against a bill giving those tax cuts to the middle class, putting Boehner in the position that Boehner should have put him in.

It would be funny, except we'll all be the losers.

None of this had any effect on the causes and magnitude of the ongoing financial disaster. It's politiical posturing, nothing more. Even had Boehner completely caved on Obama's "tax the rich" demands, the extra taxes gathered would have run the government for EIGHT WHOLE DAYS. Wouldn't have even stopped the ever increasing debt, much less done anything to reduce it.

But given Boehner's punishment of conservatives and ethnic cleansing of them from positions of influence, one wonders if the sudden revolt against Boehner's control will go far enough to throw him out on his ass and find someone better. Boehner after all faces reelection for the Speaker's position next month in the new Congress. What would happen if the conservative Republicans told him to resign the Speaker's position. Either resign, or conservative Republicans would vote only "present" when asked to vote on whether Pelosi or Boehner should be the Speaker for the next Congress. With about 16 - 18 conservative Republicans just purged from positions, an action like that would ensure that Boehner would be defeated and Pelosi would resume the Speaker's position.

Think that might help Boehner to "get your ass in line"?

I don't know if that would help to get Republicans focused on fighting an overreaching and overspending government that has brought the country to this point, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

Well it’s good to see some of the party still has a set.

There is a lot of talk about creativity. In states there government is strong and taxes are high creativity is supposed to be low. I was wondering about that… What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality? The most products made in US are crappy shit in my opinon, cars snowmobiles etc. The last thing from US that I have experience is a Ford F series raptor pickup. A primitive dinosaur that is more like cars from Soviet. Why is it like that? The most creative US product is kentucky fried chicken. ( In my mind ;)

I feel much of the creatively in the US is dampened by the over regulation of just about everything.
In NY, Trans fats, salts, and 32oz sodas are considered illegal. Really, WTF!
NYS isone of the highest taxed states in the union and we are broke. Over spending on entitlements and crazy law’s are killing the Empire state.

rokka wrote:

What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality? The most products made in US are crappy shit in my opinon, cars snowmobiles etc.

???? Really???

What crappy shit Norwegian or Swedish made snowmobile do you think is superior to the snowmobiles made in the US these days? Whatever they are, (if they exist?) they don't appear to be proving their mettle beating US products in competition.

Firearms. What crappy shit Norwegian or Swedish made revolver or semiautomatic handgun is superior to products from companies like S&W and STI, shotguns from companies like Remington and Mossberg, etc?

Hell, the Swedish army uses Colt grenade launchers, Remington shotguns, Belgian rifles, German rifles, Barrett sniper rifles, etc. Not to mention German tanks. Appears the Swedes can't design or create half assed military kit anymore - they need to use everybody else's. Norway isn't any better, also needing to use the ingenuity and creativity of the US, Canada, and other countries to arm their soldiers.

What Swedish or Norwegian combat aircraft has a chance in hell of surviving against American first line combat aircraft.

What Swedish or Norwegian satellite, spacecraft, or space lab is above the Americans in quality? What have Sweden or Norway put up in space that is the technological and creative equal of the Hubble telescope? What satellite system comparable to Landsat, Quickbird, etc?

When you use a GPS in Sweden or Norway, what country invented the technology you're using? Who engineered and created the satellites your GPS is using - Sweden, Norway, or the US?

As far as I can tell, the only thing useful ever to come out of Sweden was the Swedish Bikini Team... oh wait, they were actually American women.

Quote :

The most creative US product is kentucky fried chicken. ( In my mind ;)

It's kind of funny you should make that claim using the Internet - invented and developed in the United States, not Sweden or Norway. And possibly using electricity generated by a nuclear power power plant as well - nuclear power plants being created by the US.

Much of the reason the US is at the fiscal cliff to begin with is politicians adopting European socialist philosophies that allows those who want it to suck off the government tit their whole life.

crazy_dave wrote:

I feel much of the creatively in the US is dampened by the over regulation of just about everything.

Indeed. In Obama's first year - just his first year - he added 68,598 pages of new regulations to the Federal Register. And that was before Obamacare... The cost of all those regulations to taxpayers is over a trillion dollars!

Quote :

In NY, Trans fats, salts, and 32oz sodas are considered illegal. Really, WTF!

You should be more respectful of the masterminds who are your intellectual betters. Don't you appreciate that your govenment knows what's best for you, and what you should and shouldn't be allowed to buy, consume, etc?

Quote :

NYS isone of the highest taxed states in the union and we are broke. Over spending on entitlements and crazy law’s are killing the Empire state.

But look at how much extra government and government oversight and regulation it is buying you...

Quote :

What crappy shit Norwegian or Swedish made snowmobile do you think is superior to the snowmobiles made in the US these days? Whatever they are, (if they exist?) they don't appear to be proving their mettle beating US products in competition.

Well im a Finn so I ride can ride Lynx witch Is superior to America snowmovbiles in my opinion. But i choose the best one's from Japan and one from Canada.

Quote :

Hell, the Swedish army uses Colt grenade launchers, Remington shotguns, Belgian rifles, German rifles, Barrett sniper rifles, etc. Not to mention German tanks. Appears the Swedes can't design or create half assed military kit anymore - they need to use everybody else's. Norway isn't any better, also needing to use the ingenuity and creativity of the US, Canada, and other countries to arm their soldiers.

What Swedish or Norwegian combat aircraft has a chance in hell of surviving against American first line combat aircraft.

Most people I don’t wery often buy Grenade launchers or combat aircrafts.wtich is a pitty for US

US space program has made some great contributions to us that’s true. Where would US space program be with out Werner von Braun.

Swedish exports are greater than Swedish imports There is a reason for that.. US exports are lower than US imports and there are a reason for that
Quality every day products are associated to Germany Japan Swiss etc when US joins the group things will change.

I know you view on gouvernmet issues. Here we have all those "bad" things and still economi is great. I don’t know any one that are unemployed and
the recession you are going true are something we don’t know any thing of.


Swedish Bikini team ? Did you mean like this

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/luoxu/2004/11/22/img415ff861ae77e.jpg

Quote :

It's kind of funny you should make that claim using the Internet - invented and developed in the United States, not Sweden or Norway.

But it’s kind of hard to cash in on; by the way I said most not all. When us products like cars meets the standard of Mercedes Bmw and perhaps Volvo people in rest of the world stars purchase them. Hell you don’t buy them yourself.

Quote :

And possibly using electricity generated by a nuclear power plant as well - nuclear power plants being created by the US.

Nope my electric comes from other sources. I think nuclear fission and the use of them where a struggle of many nationality’s

rokka wrote:

Most people I don’t wery often buy Grenade launchers or combat aircrafts.wtich is a pitty for US

But that isn't what you were sneering about, was it? Here, let's refresh your memory:
What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality?

And now you apparently want to play "but I wasn't talking about that product.... just cars and fried chicken"

Quote :

US space program has made some great contributions to us that’s true. Where would US space program be with out Werner von Braun.

Maybe about where Volvo would be without the assembly line invented by Henry Ford?

Quote :

I know you view on gouvernmet issues. Here we have all those "bad" things and still economi is great. I don’t know any one that are unemployed and
the recession you are going true are something we don’t know any thing of.

And how's that socialism thing working out for North Korea? Any number of socialist former Soviet states?

I don't think you know anything about dealing with the issues of providing goods and services to about 18,000,000 illegal immigrants either - i.e. about twice the population of Sweden.

They don't pay income tax, but their kids get school, the get medical care, they use roads and facilities built with taxes, they get police and fire services paid for by taxes, etc. Pity we couldn't ship them all over to you so you could show us how it's done in providing for them without taking an economic hit..

I am left wondering, however, that if Sweden is so wonderful, why does the US remain far and away the number one choice as the country would be immigrants and refugees would choose to go to? Sweden isn't even close to the top of the list as a choice - why would that be, anyways?

It also probably helps that Sweden is small enough that it wouldn't be anything other than one of the larger states if it were located in America

One of America's main problems is it is a set up around a free market system, and instead the government is trying to run it like a socialist system. That way you get to enjoy the worst of both worlds.

rokka wrote:

Quote :

It's kind of funny you should make that claim using the Internet - invented and developed in the United States, not Sweden or Norway.

But it’s kind of hard to cash in on;

When did "hard to cash in on" ever enter into it? Oh wait... you just tried to move the goalposts again, didn't you.

We started out with this:
What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality?

And now in addition it is about "and cash in on".

If the US decided they wanted to make a buck off the Internet and GPS, it wouldn't be that hard to do. Where are all those top level domain servers located, anyways? Who codes the GPS signals?

Quote :

But that isn't what you were sneering about, was it? Here, let's refresh your memory:
What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality?

And now you apparently want to play "but I wasn't talking about that product.... just cars and fried chicken"

That’s right. Products that we use in our everyday life. By viewing US imports and exports I can conclude that things are not working as god as in Sweden. A country with all kinds of climates and possibilities are more dependent on the rest of the world than a tiny country like Sweden. I do think that here is one of the biggest reasons for your country’s problems. Creativity is lacking in USA.

Quote :

Maybe about where Volvo would be without the assembly line invented by Henry Ford?

I think that kind of questions are interesting. Contrafact debates about what if. Just as relevant as Werner von Braun. Braun’s creativity came under one of the most repressive governing in human history. He’s achivments are regarded as American as well as Volvos achievements as Swedish.

Quote :

And how's that socialism thing working out for North Korea? Any number of socialist former Soviet states?

There is no relevance what so ever with comparing Sweden and Norway to North Korea. You know that don’t you ? In my region which is one of the richest on earth, where people are happy healtie and do consume a lot. People here regard US products as not even second best. I think that is a problem for US. Creativity is lacking in US. It’s human to want a system change that will fix the errors. A system change will not pay your depth. Everybody goes true hard times in life, how do we usually fix them ? By working hard and decreasing our living standards studying developing.

If it is a system error how can we have high living standards ?

A Comparison

GPD in my region for every person working 161 667 $
Capita in my region 84 994 $

GPD
USA capita 48 387 $

Quote :

I don't think you know anything about dealing with the issues of providing goods and services to about 18,000,000 illegal immigrants either - i.e. about twice the population of Sweden.

Well its numbers to me, there are god things with being big and bad things. God thing is that one tax dollar from 250 million people is a huge amount of money, there is a critical mass to build big systems like GPS or receiving immigrants.

Quote :

They don't pay income tax, but their kids get school, the get medical care, they use roads and facilities built with taxes, they get police and fire services paid for by taxes, etc. Pity we couldn't ship them all over to you so you could show us how it's done in providing for them without taking an economic hit..

I bet this is a great problem in USA.

Quote :

I am left wondering, however, that if Sweden is so wonderful, why does the US remain far and away the number one choice as the country would be immigrants and refugees would choose to go to? Sweden isn't even close to the top of the list as a choice - why would that be, anyways?

It also probably helps that Sweden is small enough that it wouldn't be anything other than one of the larger states if it were located in America

When it comes to immigrants Sweden is a country far away and immigrants has to pass many countries before arriving. That is probably important and many people that are poor may not know what Sweden is. It’s also a country with winter. Perhaps that frightens people. We do have a lot of immigrants compared to other European countries.

Quote :

One of America's main problems is it is a set up around a free market system, and instead the government is trying to run it like a socialist system. That way you get to enjoy the worst of both worlds.

Quote :

When did "hard to cash in on" ever enter into it? Oh wait... you just tried to move the goalposts again, didn't you.

If US would benefit largely on charching on GPS they would probably do that. When it comes to internet and the claim that internet is American, I think that internet would not be what it is if US disconnect rest of the world. Technically possible will it happen. Of course not

Quote :

We started out with this:
What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality?

You got me there, GPS is a state of the art product which I consume. Thanks US for that. I hope do that Galileo vs. GPS have the same difference as Ford F series and BMW.

Quote :

And now in addition it is about "and cash in on".

If the US decided they wanted to make a buck off the Internet and GPS, it wouldn't be that hard to do. Where are all those top level domain servers located, anyways? Who codes the GPS signals?

If US would benefit largely on charching on GPS they would probably do that. When it comes to internet and the claim that internet is American, I really don’t know what technical contribution Europe made to the internet, surely something. Technically possible will it happen. Of course not

Do I still think that many us products ar crappy. Yes I do. I can tell you about the most expensive snowmobile ever bought in my family. A top of the line Arctic cat M800 2012 purchased for 44 400 $
The machine has been more in the dealer’s garage than on the mountain. Steraring does not work, the machine will not turn out in the snow, transmission is breaking down, transmission is eating on the hood etc. That is one of the Arctic’s that we had, everyone has been the same. But it’s history now, it will be replaced by a Finnish Lynx.

A winning concept for me has been to skip US built ones I guess our youngest snowmobile driver in the family will join me.

rokka wrote:

That’s right. Products that we use in our everyday life. By viewing US imports and exports I can conclude that things are not working as god as in Sweden.

Funny you should mention that.

I look at what I buy and consume in North America, and guess what - I don't see a lot of stuff from Sweden being bought up here, either. No problem finding somebody who will sell you a Volvo - it's just most people prefer to buy something else other than a Volvo. Especially when Volvo hasn't been creative enough to build a half-assed pickup truck yet.

Quote :

A country with all kinds of climates and possibilities are more dependent on the rest of the world than a tiny country like Sweden. I do think that here is one of the biggest reasons for your country’s problems.

The US is "dependent" because it has the economic ability to be a consumer. Americans as a country buy lots of stuff because, quite simply, they have the economic power to be able to afford to do that. And as a manufacturing nation, you either export or you go broke. It is also a lot easier to be a very tiny country and to brag "we're self sufficient". You may well be, but you don't have to deal with issues as simple as the distance to transport any item from one end of the country to another.

Quote :

Creativity is lacking in USA.

If that is indeed true, creativity by comparison is nonexistent in Sweden.

Consider the booming Swedish film and entertainment industry. They will be putting Hollywood out of business any day now.

Consider the Swedish space program and the technological advances from that the world has benefited from.

All the advances in medicine coming from Sweden, leaving the inept Americans in their wake, along with institutions like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins.

And somewhere Sweden no doubt has their version of Silicon Valley, leading the world digital age. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were actually Swedes! Larry Page and Sergey Brin are actually Swedes, educated at a Swedish university, and founded Google in Sweden. Eric Schmidt - another Swedish digital pioneer and leader of note.

Yep... Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Google... Swedish creativity that changed the world.

Quote :

In my region which is one of the richest on earth, where people are happy healtie and do consume a lot.

That's one of the nice things about being tiny and enjoying the chance benefit of being located in one of the richest regions of earth - you can screw up all kinds of things and be inefficient as hell, and you still do okay. Qatar can say the same thing.

Quote :

People here regard US products as not even second best. I think that is a problem for US.

One of the interesting things about the US is that there are places like Sweden who are obsessed with comparing themselves to the US. And then there's the US, who really doesn't care what they compare or think. Of course, most Americans aren't exactly feeling driven to search for Swedish products to buy because they feel they are somehow superior either.

And if they were looking for a Swedish created computer operating system or something similar... well, good luck with that.

Quote :

Creativity is lacking in US.

Yes, you keep posting that from your computer. From a country that contributes just about zero to the digital age. About a country which is the home of Microsoft, Apple, Unix, Sun, etc. and their inventors and founders.

It is somewhat bemusing that all you could find creative from the US was Kentucky Fried Chicken, and you're so blind you didn't notice the computer technology you were using to make that myopic observation.

Quote :

Quote :

I don't think you know anything about dealing with the issues of providing goods and services to about 18,000,000 illegal immigrants either - i.e. about twice the population of Sweden.

Well its numbers to me, there are god things with being big and bad things. God thing is that one tax dollar from 250 million people is a huge amount of money, there is a critical mass to build big systems like GPS or receiving immigrants.

Illegal aliens are not "immigrants". They don't add to any "critical mass". It would be like the entire population of Sweden moving to the US - twice - and settling in to use the education system, the health care system, etc without paying a dime of income tax towards the money required to provide those systems and public utilities.

Managing to host that many people who ain't paying their way is pretty creative, even if it obviously isn't creative enough to offset the drain on the economy and those systems.

Quote :

When it comes to immigrants Sweden is a country far away and immigrants has to pass many countries before arriving.

You mean like the Vietnamese, the Tamils, and the Somalis who came to North America? The refugees from the former Soviet Union. That's a bit of a distance.

Of course, the surveys the UN does on choices for immigration/refugee status aren't based on where people went - they're based on where they'd PREFER to go. And those would-be immigrants and refugees choose the US over Sweden by an enormous margin. I don't think Sweden (or Norway) even make the Top Ten. Canada is second or third, but Sweden isn't even up there.

Quote :

It’s also a country with winter. Perhaps that frightens people.

Funny thing - we have winter here too. Enough that the snowmobile was invented here - not over in Sweden.

Quote :

If US would benefit largely on charching on GPS they would probably do that.

Why? Because we all know the US would never share a technology with the world if they could make a buck off it?

Quote :

When it comes to internet and the claim that internet is American

Oh, "the claim"... well, please do present us with the alternate theory that Sweden was instrumental in developing the Internet or whatever other version of history you have that differs from the Internet being invented and developed in the US.

Before you put that forward, however, you might want to use that Sweden-created Google thing to search "history of the Internet"...

A Brief History Of The Internet

Quote :

You got me there, GPS is a state of the art product which I consume. Thanks US for that. I hope do that Galileo vs. GPS have the same difference as Ford F series and BMW.

Funny that. The US managed to put up and maintain GPS in a couple of years from start to finish to get it online. All while lacking creativity, etc and so forth.

Meanwhile, decades later, having to merely copycat American technology, the European Union altogether has been fumbling away with Galileo for years now and is just getting its first SVs up in the last year or so. Completion is scheduled for Galileo in 2020 - a mere seven years from now. European creativity at work - the Ford vs BMW comparison in view for all to see (although last I heard, BMW was not a hotbed of Swedish creativity, nor particularly noted for being able to build an affordable half ton truck).

Quote :

When it comes to internet and the claim that internet is American, I really don’t know what technical contribution Europe made to the internet, surely something.

Yes, Europe must have made at least a technological contribution to the invention of the Internet - surely something, because we all know the US lacks creativity, and about the only thing they could create without European assistance is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I can't find any evidence that Europe in general nor Sweden or Norway in particular contributed one iota to the invention and development of the Internet and TCP/IP protocol, but I must be wrong about that and I'm sure you'll be happy to point out to all of us what I missed.

Quote :

But it’s history now, it will be replaced by a Finnish Lynx.

The Finnish snowmobile equivalent of how they also dominate the digitial age with their operating systems and software, no doubt.

I guess I'll have to keep an eye out to see when - if ever - they manage to place at least once or twice in snowmobile racing, rallies, etc. A real winner like that? Why, the most competitive drivers and teams should be all over that!

Quote :

Funny you should mention that.

I look at what I buy and consume in North America, and guess what - I don't see a lot of stuff from Sweden being bought up here, either. No problem finding somebody who will sell you a Volvo - it's just most people prefer to buy something else other than a Volvo. Especially when Volvo hasn't been creative enough to build a half-assed pickup truck yet.

Its very creative to build a car on a frame with interior panel fit in that looks like a Russian toy. Yes I agree. I think we will choose a Japanesse one next time.

Quote :

The US is "dependent" because it has the economic ability to be a consumer. Americans as a country buy lots of stuff because, quite simply, they have the economic power to be able to afford to do that. And as a manufacturing nation, you either export or you go broke. It is also a lot easier to be a very tiny country and to brag "we're self sufficient". You may well be, but you don't have to deal with issues as simple as the distance to transport any item from one end of the country to another.

Can you really afford to have that balance between import and export? Last I checked the US debt was a trillion dollars.

Quote :

If that is indeed true, creativity by comparison is nonexistent in Sweden.

Sure, we build things that people buy and export them

consider the booming Swedish film and entertainment industry. They will be putting Hollywood out of business any day now.


Consider the Swedish space program and the technological advances from that the world has benefited from.
elites even going to march

In comparison to our size we are doing ok with scientific sat


All the advances in medicine coming from Sweden, leaving the inept Americans in their wake, along with institutions like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins.


And somewhere Sweden no doubt has their version of Silicon Valley, leading the world digital age. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were actually Swedes! Larry Page and Sergey Brin are actually Swedes, educated at a Swedish university, and founded Google in Sweden. Eric Schmidt - another Swedish digital pioneer and leader of note.

Yep... Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Google... Swedish creativity that changed the world.

A country with 300 million inhibitors will have a couple of peak companies. Even if a superior operative system was invented in a small country like Norway the defact standard would make it impossible to conquer the world. In relation to our size we do ok in all areas. Do you crave that states like Minesota or Florida must have ther own space program navigation system silicon walley etc. I dont think so

Quote :

That's one of the nice things about being tiny and enjoying the chance benefit of being located in one of the richest regions of earth - you can screw up all kinds of things and be inefficient as hell, and you still do okay. Qatar can say the same thing.

You gladly point out the benefits being small. Not same generousity to point out the nice things by being big. Did you dropped the comparison with North korea because you realized that it was wrong ? Again a comparison with Quatar has no relevance. We have what you call a socialist system and are apparantly much more happy and produce economic results better than US in my region.

Quote :

One of the interesting things about the US is that there are places like Sweden who are obsessed with comparing themselves to the US. And then there's the US, who really doesn't care what they compare or think. Of course, most Americans aren't exactly feeling driven to search for Swedish products to buy because they feel they are somehow superior either.

And if they were looking for a Swedish created computer operating system or something similar... well, good luck with that.

No its not important for me to make that comparison between USA and Sweden Germany Norway etc. I only do that because you pointed( the truth) out that USA’s problem is its socialism. USA’s problem its not socialism, its like a private person using its credit card to many times. It dosent matter what coulour his cap has. Hes using hes credit card to many times with out the dollars and dimes. Economy is supposed to be something difficult. It is not, keep an eye att your pennys and the dollars will nurse them selfs. Countries with your version of Socialism has less depth happier people.Maybe your version of the truth is something else.

Quote :

Yes, you keep posting that from your computer. From a country that contributes just about zero to the digital age. About a country which is the home of Microsoft, Apple, Unix, Sun, etc. and their inventors and founders.

It is somewhat bemusing that all you could find creative from the US was Kentucky Fried Chicken, and you're so blind you didn't notice the computer technology you were using to make that myopic observation.

That’s right your high technology companies does not sustain your living of standards as a nation you are living on credit. Your living standard is going to decrease. Government or reality will do that for you. Instead of buying things around the world you could produce them yourself. But as a nation that creativity is lacking.

Quote :

Illegal aliens are not "immigrants". They don't add to any "critical mass". It would be like the entire population of Sweden moving to the US - twice - and settling in to use the education system, the health care system, etc without paying a dime of income tax towards the money required to provide those systems and public utilities.

Managing to host that many people who ain't paying their way is pretty creative, even if it obviously isn't creative enough to offset the drain on the economy and those systems.

You mean like the Vietnamese, the Tamils, and the Somalis who came to North America? The refugees from the former Soviet Union. That's a bit of a distance.

Of course, the surveys the UN does on choices for immigration/refugee status aren't based on where people went - they're based on where they'd PREFER to go. And those would-be immigrants and refugees choose the US over Sweden by an enormous margin. I don't think Sweden (or Norway) even make the Top Ten. Canada is second or third, but Sweden isn't even up there.
Funny thing - we have winter here too. Enough that the snowmobile was invented here - not over in Sweden

That Sweden was not the most decired country for imigration is not a problem for me But you have a border to a third world country and regions with summer all year long. We don’t have that.

Invention of the snowmobile is claimed at many places. If it was USA Canada or Sweden is not important to me.

Quote :

Why? Because we all know the US would never share a technology with the world if they could make a buck off it?

Well i would like to here you version of that ?

Quote :

Funny that. The US managed to put up and maintain GPS in a couple of years from start to finish to get it online. All while lacking creativity, etc and so forth.

Meanwhile, decades later, having to merely copycat American technology, the European Union altogether has been fumbling away with Galileo for years now and is just getting its first SVs up in the last year or so. Completion is scheduled for Galileo in 2020 - a mere seven years from now. European creativity at work - the Ford vs BMW comparison in view for all to see (although last I heard, BMW was not a hotbed of Swedish creativity, nor particularly noted for being able to build an affordable half ton truck).

We still hope for the same diference ;)

Quote :

The Finnish snowmobile equivalent of how they also dominate the digitial age with their operating systems and software, no doubt.

This machine cost a lot of money and performed poore. The Finnish sleds that we had did not performe that bad and we had many of them

rokka wrote:

Can you really afford to have that balance between import and export? Last I checked the US debt was a trillion dollars.

You must have checked quite a while ago - it is a hell of a lot higher than that.

What can we say. When you try to run a country based on free market principles as a socialist country - where 50% of the population doesn't even pay income tax and entitlements are expanding almost exponentially - you end up in debt. So you drag the country into the financial gutter with entitlements, tax disparity and punative taxation, and ever increasing red tape and regulations smothering business. Then you say the resultant mess is the result of unregulated free markets.

Quote :

A country with 300 million inhibitors will have a couple of peak companies.

The point is Sweden and Norway aren't even also-rans in the digital age. It isn't just "a couple of peak companies". Sweden and Norway are complete losers in the who's who of creativity in the computer and information technology age, and yet apparently you can't see any evidence where American creativity leads the world - other than Kentucky Fried Chicken, of course.

Quote :

Even if a superior operative system was invented in a small country like Norway the defact standard would make it impossible to conquer the world.

You can't even come up with a competitive player in the applications market, much less operating systems. Whether it's Java, or .pdfs, or word processors, you're still in the age of cutting runes in rock walls.

Quote :

In relation to our size we do ok in all areas.

You may be, or may not be. But that's a pathetic excuse why you haven't produced anything after saying you can't find any evidence of American creativity. Many of your industries - including a lot of mining - are dependent on GPS systems, computer operating systems, computer applications, etc. American creativity, all of it. Yet the only American creativity you recognize is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Quote :

That’s right your high technology companies does not sustain your living of standards as a nation you are living on credit. Your living standard is going to decrease.

Indeed it will. And attempting to back door European socialism into governance is going to guarantee a bad end.

Quote :

What can we say. When you try to run a country based on free market principles as a socialist country - where 50% of the population doesn't even pay income tax and entitlements are expanding almost exponentially - you end up in debt. So you drag the country into the financial gutter with entitlements, tax disparity and punative taxation, and ever increasing red tape and regulations smothering business. Then you say the resultant mess is the result of unregulated free markets.

I would like to see all the government spending of USA divided to 4 or 5 topics see how much money its spended on aliens.

Quote :

The point is Sweden and Norway aren't even also-rans in the digital age. It isn't just "a couple of peak companies". Sweden and Norway are complete losers in the who's who of creativity in the computer and information technology age, and yet apparently you can't see any evidence where American creativity leads the world - other than Kentucky Fried Chicken, of course.

Sweds or people from Sweden contributed to internet the same amount that people from Montana or Neworleans did. I claim that without checking the facts. Skype and Spotify are Swedish. But I cannot glare with them because I am a Finn. Swedes are big I phone systems and from what I know the only nation with 8-9 million inhibitors that construct and build own aircrafts. They build satellites that go to march and do god science, they sell place on rockets to do microgravity research, they have underground mines that compete success fully with over ground mines and most of all they manage their economy. It’s like the state of North Carolina would produce aero planes build satellites etc. Today 48 out of 52 states in USA cannot finance their costs. That is not the case with Sweden where every citizen has proper health care. That is creativity in my eyes but of course they are like the North Koreans or was it Qatar.

I would say that the losers are a corporate definition of winning for mankind. inventing without cashing in on the invention. How many wonderful mathematics philosophies true out the history was used by others and gained something. Do you think that Apple Cisco etc. uses things that were developed in perhaps Greece to do their contribution to the digital age ? Internet or the computing era has a great relationship with USA. But computers are made I Ireland china or somewhere else, the wiring to my house are made by somebody else the home pages that I visit every day are made by yes perhaps Swedes Chines. Yes HTML is used and the Americans creating it deserve credit. But most of the American stuff that we came a cross are crappy and Americans them self-show that by importing virtually everything. When you start to do what you did to produce first class products that you own population wants to have then we will probably do the same. You have the best universities on earth you have resources from the nature still your country has regions that are of the same standards as third world countries. I figure that is not as amusing to talk about.

Quote :

You can't even come up with a competitive player in the applications market, much less operating systems. Whether it's Java, or .pdfs, or word processors, you're still in the age of cutting runes in rock walls.

How about the big software industry in Montana ? Are you cutting runes in rockwalls ? How about the Montana space program, How about the Montana position system or Montana silicon walleye ?

Quote :

You may be, or may not be. But that's a pathetic excuse why you haven't produced anything after saying you can't find any evidence of American creativity. Many of your industries - including a lot of mining - are dependent on GPS systems, computer operating systems, computer applications, etc. American creativity, all of it. Yet the only American creativity you recognize is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

As a citizen in the Swedish republic of NortKorea it feels great to be a pathetic excusing ashole. Now I would like to have some Kentucky fried chicken because the Swedish julbord makes me want to puke. But I cannot have it. The only fast food I ever liked cannot be bought here.

Quote :

Indeed it will. And attempting to back door European socialism into governance is going to guarantee a bad end.

The American way does not work so god either. That makes me sad because USA was the country that we admired. But it was some time ago.

What does it mean that Swedish or US engineers build things like March instruments? What does it mean that we build aero planes and high Tec stuff to our everyday creativity? I Would say nothing at all, (GPS and the net are the exception that confirms the rule) even if I use to work for the division that build the Swedish instruments to march and I had the Luxury of getting the government pay check every month. These products are for me more like: look what we have. Da dada daaadada.

Every government that uses nations finances equally bad as the Greece, Swedes, US governments are stupid people that are a threat to everybody. Some want’s to call that socialism I prefer stupidism. I wonder do they run their own economics equally bad.

What really matters is a society’s that works where we can send our kids to University without going bankrupt, where we can trade and work and bloom and have a happy life. And I am not sure that combat aircraft and satellites to march is the answer to that.

About the crises and the deficit, we have been there and done that in the 90‘s. What is interesting in times of crises is to listen to politicians and ordinary people that have to face the facts. It takes a hell of an effort to crawl out of the mud like we did. To pay back is always less interesting than spending the money and as always, people and politicians are crying: we don wanna do that! Think of that while spending! The escape from reality and responsibility is a wide spread disease now days. It is also a sign of people that thinks that our living standard is a divine right. Not a day goes by when I remind my kids that you nice dirt bikes, snowmobiles and holidays can be history any day. I think everybody needs to be pore some time in life. Recession is a time in life when we have to be without stuff our parents did not know about.

Times will get hard for many people in US and that is indeed sad. But if there is any country that will manage to turn the tide I put my money on USA. Right now I think many people and industries over there are spoiled and need to shape up. I also think that the understanding of systems like healthcare and unemployment insurance issues will grow over there.

From what I read in our news about avoiding the fissical cliff is that many important issues are moved to the future. Not a god sign but it is god that some kind of agreement is settled
It is easy to ordinate pills to somebody else but do it like USA use to do it with out tranqualizers.

Quote: A lot of black and white comments here -- mostly along the lines of: if you're not for capitalism, then you are a communist. And communists were/are bad. You don't have to be a Stalinist to lament the fact that we live in a society with such radical disparity in respect to earnings and quality of life. No doubt there are very hard workers in the ranks of the corporate executive class, but there are also many hard workers of much more modest means who may not have pursued the path to corporate riches, not simply because they were unqualified or less intelligent, but because perhaps the values that define who they are do not square with the compromises that they would have to make in order to pursue this goal.

My problem with this narrow band of thinking is that it seems to assume that arriving in the corporate executive class is a virtue in and of itself. We all know, of course, that there are plenty of ways to get there without an ounce of honour or empathy. One would hope that any organization with an ounce of real virtue would have the fortitude to blend their need to attract and retain skilled managers with the decency not to pay these people outrageous and insane salaries. Real virtue would dictate that the organizations and the managers would be just as offended by overcompensation as the average wage earner. The alternative is simply a bald-faced admission of unmitigated greed. You don't have to be communist to find this disgusting.




...I can't help but think these comments reflect allot of what apposes the status quo.
Quality of workmanship, and drive, effect us all.
Incentive can be personal or corporate...intellectual or monetary.
What drives you to do what is right...well, that's you.

Now, predicting the future is another science....heh.
Most would agree that the future is calculated, at best, and all we have to go on is history, as a resource of knowledge.
While others nit pick from knowledge to justify what they want now.
Nature and history has already told us what to expect....but I guess not everyone can see the future.

...Then there are those who only pay attention to the parts of history that serve their argument.

rokka wrote:

Sweds or people from Sweden contributed to internet the same amount that people from Montana or Neworleans did. I claim that without checking the facts.

I believe you claim that without checking the facts - or indeed, bothering to click on the link provided earlier on the history of the Internet. Because your claim that Sweden somehow or other had something to do with the creativity that imagined and delivered the Internet is pure, unadulterated BS.

As the observation goes, you're entitled to your opinion - but you're not entitled to your version of facts that are false. That would include claims that Sweden somehow or other had something to do with the invention of the Internet. I'm surprised you didn't go all out and claim Sweden had something to do with the invention of GPS as well. Not a fan of the theory of "go big or stay home"?

Quote :

Skype and Spotify are Swedish.

Skype isn't Swedish.

Once again, you're entitled to your opinions - but you're not entitled to your own set of "facts".

Skype is a business, based on using VOIP technology - VOIP being a creative invention of Americans. Skype isn't an invention, any more than Volvo invented the production line instead of Henry Ford. Skype isn't even the first (or even the second) VOIP telecomms company. All they are doing is making money of somebody else's creativity and inventions. Which is fine - but they didn't invent or develop the technology they're making money by using.

Furthermore, Skype was developed by a couple of Georgians or Estonians; I don't recall which, but it is one of the former USSR states. They developed the software - not Swedes. The Swedish connection? Well, one of the businessmen who bought rights to the software and started Skype the company to make a profit off the creativity of others was a Swede. That's the Swedish angle. I remember that because he's the same guy that funded Kazaa, making money off enabling the theft of the creativity of others - the musicians whose product was "shared" by Kazaa users without compensation. Now that's creativity - making money off enabling theft of the creativity of others!

But wait!!!!

rokka wrote:

What US product is of high quality and beyond everything in quality?...The most creative US product is kentucky fried chicken. ( In my mind ;)

Well, we've moved from your original claim above to you instead claiming Swedes had something to do with helping the US invent the Internet, VOIP, can't keep up with US creativity because of their small size, etc. It's not The Enlightenment, but perhaps it's a start.

So - particularly as this has little to do with the Fiscal Cliff other than your claim that US products were crap and the most creative US product was KFC - I think I'll drop this little side trip with you right about here. Feel free to start an Off Topic on how Swedish (or Finnish if you feel luckier with your masculine side) creativity surpasses American if you want to pursue it further.

mucker wrote:

Quote: A lot of black and white comments here -- mostly along the lines of: if you're not for capitalism, then you are a communist. And communists were/are bad. You don't have to be a Stalinist to lament the fact that we live in a society with such radical disparity in respect to earnings and quality of life.

That's an interesting quote when it doesn't appear anywhere in the thread. But it's got a nice socialist/statist ring to it - Saul Alinsky would be proud, I'm sure.

Yes, let's lament and boo-hoo because there is such a great disparity in earnings and quality of life in society. Would I be wrong if I offered the observation that was one of Marx's recurrent themes and his justification for many of the measures he advocated? If I am wrong on that, please do correct me; it's been a while since I read the Communist Manifesto.

But most importantly, let's try really, really hard to ignore that the successful generally work their asses off to achieve their goals and frequently fail one or more times - but they don't quit, they keep trying until they achieve success. Or, they leave their families for months at a time to work in the oil patch, up in the North, etc. Or, they spend a decade or more in university, followed by endless hours working their way up in a business. While the poor downtrodden hang around the local basketball courts, unwilling to make similar sacrifices to achieve the same earnings and quality of life. Poor unfortunates - the mines in BC/AB, the Bakkan oil fields, etc are so desperate for workers they're advertising in other countries... and yet, these underprivileged just can't find their way to a place where even the bloody janitor clears over $8000/month after taxes.

Instead, they just struggle by with all the freebies: the food stamps, the government cell phones, and all the other entitlements. God, what a horrible injustice.

I really don't care if you want to be a socialist, or a communist, or anything else. What I do care is when you feel entitled to have the government steal from my income to fund your lack of drive. Oh, you have ambition for the income and quality of life - as much as I do in fact. The difference is you think you should have the same earnings and quality of life as I do - but you also think you shouldn't have to sacrifice as much or work as hard to get there, and part of my earnings after that effort and sacrifice should go to you so you can live about as well as I do.

And so, you believe that it is the government's job to guarantee you an economic outcome. You don't believe that governments should protect your pursuit of happiness - oh no, they should go far beyond that. You believe they should go further and give you happiness. At least, as far as income and the lifestyle you feel you're entitled to are concerned. Somebody, of course, has to pay for it. And because you won't make the same sacrifices, put in the same effort - or sometimes, just get lucky - to come up with the income to pay for what you feel you're entitled to... well then, those who have what you want should fund your shortfall. After all, as the theory goes, they can afford it...

Quote :

No doubt there are very hard workers in the ranks of the corporate executive class, but there are also many hard workers of much more modest means who may not have pursued the path to corporate riches, not simply because they were unqualified or less intelligent, but because perhaps the values that define who they are do not square with the compromises that they would have to make in order to pursue this goal.

You're kind of selectively ignoring that there's a lot of blue collar/technical worker making as much as the "corporate executive class". But, I understand, it doesn't sound as good as we mention The Working Man in that same class. So fair enough, I get why you do that, let's carry on:

Indeed, they did not make compromises to achieve the same goal. However, having instead chosen a different version of what "quality of life" means, they can't then say they also deserve the same economic outcome and quality of life as those who made sacrifices/choices that they would not. You can't choose time with your family as your priority and then boo-hoo that it isn't fair because you don't have the same income and economic outcome as the guy who is away from home and his family for half the year or more in exchange for making wages three or four times what he would make if he stayed home.

Quote :

My problem with this narrow band of thinking is that it seems to assume that arriving in the corporate executive class is a virtue in and of itself.

Actually, your problem is that you think you should have the same economic income and lifestyle as those who work longer, or harder, or sacrificed more - or were simply a lot smarter - than you. Now that's narrow thinking.

High incomes, whether through the executive/business route or through the blue collar/technical alternative at high paying job sites aren't a virtue. Nor are they a sin. They're simply a goal that some choose to pursue while others aren't interested, can't be bothered, whatever. But what is telling is that while you discuss whether it is or isn't a virtue, you sure as hell think those who arrive in the high income brackets have something you want a cut of - or at least want to see them deprived of it. Now if it isn't a virtue, why are you so concerned with it at all?

Envy. It's a sin, you know...

Quote :

We all know, of course, that there are plenty of ways to get there without an ounce of honour or empathy.

Oh, that's true. And you can sit on your ass, expecting others to provide for you instead of work for it. You can demand government steal from others and give it to you despite you having done nothing to deserve it. You can hit the government up for food stamps, cell phones, and a myriad of other entitlement programs - all paid for, not by government, but by people who go to work every day, many of whom sacrificed and worked like hell to get where they are. We call them "taxpayers".

Any honour in making your way through life like that? Any empathy for the guy/gal who worked a couple of jobs through university, put in long hours, failed but tried again, spent months living in logging/mining/oil camps, far away from the comfortable life of civilization?

Nah. Screw 'em. They can afford to pay more.

Quote :

One would hope that any organization with an ounce of real virtue would have the fortitude to blend their need to attract and retain skilled managers with the decency not to pay these people outrageous and insane salaries.

Like a janitor clearing $8000 a month after taxes you mean? Why aren't we bitching about that - generally, janitors outnumber CEOs in the companies that employ them...

What is incomprehensible is why YOU - and all the other little socialists and statists out there running around wasting your lives bitching instead of putting that time into improving your lot in life - feel what a private company pays any of their officers is any of your damned business?

Are you a shareholder? If you are, then vote as you see fit, just as the other shareholders will do in their turn. If you don't own stock in that private company, then get your avaricious socialist snout out of their business. It's their money, not yours. Their company to run and their decisions to make, not yours. If you don't like a company, don't like what they pay their executives, don't like what they pay their welders, their millwrights, their technicians... whether too high or too low... then don't patronize them. Don't buy shares in their company.

But somebody talking about "virtue" while assuming they have some sort of right to tell a private company what they're paying anybody is too high or too low - without having a penny invested in that company - is anything but virtuous. Particularly if they were actually qualified enough in the business world to know whether or not a salary was appropriate, with that level of skill in the corporate world they'd be one of the guys wearing a suit to work every day and probably totally divorced from the idea of the 40 hour work week.

Quote :

Real virtue would dictate that the organizations and the managers would be just as offended by overcompensation as the average wage earner. The alternative is simply a bald-faced admission of unmitigated greed. You don't have to be communist to find this disgusting.

I'm impressed. We are apparently to believe that you're speaking for the "average wage earner".

Who would that be - a bunch of bums in New Brunswick who get special EI qualification rules to keep them on EI loitering around on unemployment while high paying jobs are going begging elsewhere in the country? Do you think the "average wage earners" at Kearl Lake - not a few of them commuting from Maritime provinces - making $150K or more a year agree with your views on "overcompensation"?

Do janitors fall in the ranks of the "average wage earner"? After all, they don't wear suits and ties to work, and they clean the toilets. Do you think that janitor up in a mining camp, living away from his family half the year so he can clear $8000 or more a month and get he and his family ahead... do you think he buys your schtick on "overcompensation"?

So if you sit on your ass in New Brunswick, working just enough at a dead end job each year to qualify for EI, spending much of each year on EI - year after year - subsidized by the guys at Kearl Lake, or Ataki, or the dozens of other remote sites, so you can hang around home all nice and cozy, doing little or nothing to change that situation, you're not "greedy". No, you're an "average wage earner"!

But if you sacrifice and work your ass off to make the big bucks, take a chance starting a business, and you start making big money after making those tradeoffs, then you're "overcompensated". Hell, you're greedy!

And therefore, you can afford to pay more. You won't miss it. So the government can take a cut of what you made up in the Arctic, or the oil sands, or up in the Territories in the mining camps, and give it to some poor loser in New Brunswick (or wherever) whose idea of life is qualifying for his next term of unemployment payments, as long as there's enough scratch in his jeans for a few beers down at the pub with the boys and maybe a little dirt biking here and there. And then life catches up with him - a wife, kids... suddenly there ain't enough.

And then we get a long song and dance about the radical disparities in society relating to income and quality of life. Oh, boo hoo.

Quote :

What drives you to do what is right...well, that's you.

Indeed. Some feel entitled to demand that government take a disproportionate amount from "the rich" (i.e. those who make a lot more than they do) and redistribute it to them.

Some feel they have a right to have some sort of say in what a private business pays their employees at any level.

But I wouldn't agree with that. And I'm certainly not "rich".

Quote :

Most would agree that the future is calculated, at best, and all we have to go on is history, as a resource of knowledge.
While others nit pick from knowledge to justify what they want now.

Sorta like pointing out how some of the rich can be without an ounce of honour or empathy - but in true nit picking fashion, tend to ignore all the takers and parasites living off the government redistributed labours of others who are totally absent of honour, or empathy... or in many cases, even basic honesty.

However... as history is indeed a resource of knowledge, it would be captivating indeed to read of an instance where a country moved to where it spent more than 100% of its GDP, had nearly 50% of the country paying no federal income taxes at all while the vast majority of taxation was borne by the top few percent - and not only survived, but thrived.

I'd like to read about that country in history. Because as far as I can tell, all that inevitably does is lead to the convex slope of economic ruin that the media has dubbed "the fiscal cliff".

gatorfan wrote:

I'd say we're already over the cliff. Now we're just waiting to crash into the ground below.

And I think you were right - the convex slope is just accelerating to the point where we'll be in free fall.

I spent a bit of the last couple of days reading the American Taxpayer Relief Act - as usual, a bill with a name that is the exact opposite of what it actually does. I guess I can say that, having read it, I know more about what is inside of it than the Congress critters who voted for it without having even read it.

I mean... NASCAR desperately needed the millions in tax breaks it got? Hollywood could not have survived without the $100 million or so special tax exemptions it gets? There's dozens of those.

Boiled down, it appears that Boehner led the Republicans into essentially rolling over on principle and instead concentrated on their image with the mainstream media. Obama should be laughing his ass off, and indeed Ed Shultz was almost giggling in his comments in how Obama got the Republicans to go stuff themselves. If I were Obama, I'd have Boehner and Cantor's heads mounted and hanging on my trophy wall.

The crux of the matter is that taxes are increasing $41 for every dollar reduced in spending.

This, boys and girls, is what apparently now passes for "taxpayer relief" in this country. With even more crises kicked down the road for a few more months, including bumping up the federal government's debt ceiling limit again. And let's not forget the extra trillion in taxes to fund Obamacare that this bill doesn't even address.

Apparently, a large portion of the American population DO think this can go on forever...

And as the media and public largely lose interest after the latest manufactured crisis is "solved", small snippets of background information still emerge.

First is small story pointing out that the government itself states it wastes or improperly gives away $125 billion dollars a year. The real number is almost certainly well above that. But for now, it's worth comparing that to the fact that the new "tax the rich" measures will only raise about one half that amount.

In other words boys and girls, the increases in taxes (and anybody who thinks only "the rich" will see their taxes go up considerably is a moron) won't even begin to pay for how much the government just pisses away each year. The same government we're supposed to trust to tell us how to run our lives.

Meanwhile, John Boehner has come out with his explanation/excuse for his sellout and pretty much giving Obama everything he asked for, while getting SFA in return. It makes for pretty weak soup, but it shows what happens when a backroom boy RINO Republican decides he'll negotiate with a guy like Obama and Harry Reid all by himself, and all the rest of the Republicans should just "get your ass in line" to support him:

From the Wall Street Journal, a paper quite happy with RINO Republicans as long as cuts or more taxes/more spending are offset with business exemptions and pork barrelling:

What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' "

I am talking to Mr. Boehner in his office on the second floor of the Capitol, 72 hours after the historic House vote to take America off the so-called fiscal cliff by making permanent the Bush tax cuts on most Americans, but also to raise taxes on high earners. In the interim, Mr. Boehner had been elected to serve his second term as speaker of the House. Throughout our hourlong conversation, as is his custom, he takes long drags on one cigarette after another.

Mr. Boehner looks battle weary from five weeks of grappling with the White House. He's frustrated that the final deal failed to make progress toward his primary goal of "making a down payment on solving the debt crisis and setting a path to get real entitlement reform." At one point he grimly says: "I need this job like I need a hole in the head."

The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"—he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that."

With the two sides so far from agreeing even on the nature of the country's fiscal challenge, making progress on how to address it was difficult. Mr. Boehner became so agitated with the lack of progress that he cursed at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Those days after Christmas," he explains, "I was in Ohio, and Harry's on the Senate floor calling me a dictator and all kinds of nasty things. You know, I don't lose my temper. I never do. But I was shocked at what Harry was saying about me. I came back to town. Saw Harry at the White House. And that was when that was said," he says, referring to a pointed "go [blank] yourself" addressed to Mr. Reid.

Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, "What am I getting?" and the president replied: "You don't get anything for it. I'm taking that anyway."

Why has the president been such an immovable force when it comes to cutting spending? "Two reasons," Mr. Boehner says. "He's so ideological himself, and he's unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party." That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then "pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn't sell things to his own members. But he didn't even want to try."

Mr. Boehner is frustrated that Republicans were portrayed by the press as dogmatic and unyielding in these talks. "I'm the guy who put revenues on the table the day after the election," he says. "And I'm the guy who put the [income] threshold at a million dollars. Then we agreed to let the rates go up, on dividends, capital gains as a way of trying to move them into a deal. . . . But we could never get him to step up," Mr. Boehner says with a shrug. Negotiations with the White House ended in stalemate when "it became painfully obvious that the president won't cut spending."

Once the talks broke down, the eventual scaled-back deal with no spending cuts was brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, with Mr. Boehner on the sidelines. He says that after the tax package passed the Senate, the House Republican caucus debated two alternatives. One was to amend the Senate bill by attaching spending cuts, and the other was to vote up or down on the Senate bill.

"We were already off the cliff," he says of the rushed Jan. 1 vote, and he feared that a no vote would do "serious damage to the economy." He denies twisting arms to win passage. Even though a majority of Republicans voted no, and he took flak from conservative groups as a sellout, "in the end, most of our members wanted this to pass, but they didn't want to vote for it."

In hindsight, what does he think was his biggest strategic mistake? "What I should have done the day after the election was to come out and say: The House has done its work. The House passed a bill that replaced the sequester with real spending cuts. The House passed a plan extending all of the current tax rates. We passed a budget. We call upon the Senate to do their work."

The left has been crowing that it walked away with the crown jewels and forced Republicans to cave on their "no new taxes" principle. Mr. Boehner sees things differently: "The law of the land was that all of the rates were going up January 1, period. So the question was, were we going to cut taxes by $3.7 trillion."

He's no cheerleader for the final deal—he derides the special-interest corporate-tax provisions as containing "an awful lot of garbage" and grouses about "extending unemployment without further reforms"—but he defends it as the best bad outcome that could have been expected: "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad."

Where does the fiscal debate go from here? The speaker is adamant on two points: First, Republicans won't be agreeing to any more tax increases during the next two years. "The tax issue is resolved," he says, and it will be discussed only in the context of a broader debate about tax reform—specifically, lower rates. He dismisses the president's declaration that any future budget cuts will have to be "balanced" with more tax hikes.

Second, Mr. Boehner says he won't engage in any more closed-door budget negotiations with the White House, which are "futile." He adds: "Sure, I will meet with the president if he wants to," but House Republicans will from now on proceed with establishing a budget for the year following what is known as "regular order," and they will insist that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats pass a budget—something they haven't done in nearly four years—before proceeding.

The real showdown will be on the debt ceiling and the spending sequester in March. I ask Mr. Boehner if he will take the debt-ceiling talks to the brink—risking a government shutdown and debt downgrade from the credit agencies—given that it didn't work in 2011 and President Obama has said he won't bargain on the matter.

The debt bill is "one point of leverage," Mr. Boehner says, but he also hedges, noting that it is "not the ultimate leverage." He says that Republicans won't back down from the so-called Boehner rule: that every dollar of raising the debt ceiling will require one dollar of spending cuts over the next 10 years. Rather than forcing a deal, the insistence may result in a series of monthly debt-ceiling increases.

The Republicans' stronger card, Mr. Boehner believes, will be the automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs—defense and domestic. It now appears that the president made a severe political miscalculation when he came up with the sequester idea in 2011.

As Mr. Boehner tells the story: Mr. Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester—the other "cliff"—because it included deep defense cuts. But Republicans never raised the issue. "It wasn't until literally last week that the White House brought up replacing the sequester," Mr. Boehner says. "They said, 'We can't have the sequester.' They were always counting on us to bring this to the table."

Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. "I got that in my back pocket," the speaker says. He is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."

That leverage, he reasons, is what will force Democrats to the table on entitlements. "Think of it this way. We already have an agreement [capping] discretionary spending for 10 years. And we're already in our second year of it. This whole discussion on the budget over the next several months is going to be about these entitlements."

Given the bruising of the past several weeks, Mr. Boehner is surprisingly optimistic about getting a deal done on corporate and personal income-tax reform. "The president understands the need for tax reform," he says. "The president admitted . . . in the first meeting that we needed to do tax reform, and he was for a tax reform process that would lower rates."

Mr. Boehner sees Republicans with two goals: lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, as happened in 1986, and equalizing tax rates between small businesses and large corporations. His optimism that Democrats will agree to that framework seems Pollyannish since they are now advocating closing loopholes to raise revenues—without lowering rates.

The driving passion for Mr. Boehner in these fiscal debates is his conviction that trillion-dollar deficits are sapping the country of its energy and prosperity. When I ask him when the impact of this debt will start to be felt, he says: "It's already here today. It's killing our economy. It's causing investors to sit on their cash. They're afraid to invest. It's a wet blanket on top of our economy."

He sees debt as almost a moral failing, noting that when he grew up in a "little middle-class, blue-collar neighborhood" outside of Cincinnati, "nobody had debt. It was unheard of. I just don't do debt."

Mr. Boehner says that the only way to build long-term economic growth is to reduce the nation's debt through entitlement and tax reform. But can such a deal be achieved with a president who doesn't even think that Washington has a spending problem? "He believes in the power of government," Mr. Boehner answers. "I believe in the power of the American people. It is really that simple." And really that difficult.

And they re-elected him as speaker after that. I have to say, I am reconsidering gatorfan's views on a third party, even though I believe it will mean supermajority Democrat governments probably for decades. A federal version of California if you will. But, if we're going to have California style debts and economics, might as well have it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-walmart-us-idUSBRE90E0MB20130115