|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 9, 2014 22:13:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 10, 2014 8:13:30 GMT -8
He makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 10, 2014 9:42:52 GMT -8
That's a matter of opinion. I object to many of his points, but most of all I object to his unspoken concept of wealth not really belonging to those who earned it, but to the government. It is therefore the government's job to decide how much you can keep.
In addition to the basic collectivist value that the government is the source of wealth (remember "You didn't build that"?) there is the problem that the measures Krugman, et al, favor will never achieve the goal they strive for. There will always be inequality, based on many factors. Trying to achieve equality of outcome, which is the Left's main goal, leads to an all-powerful government run by manipulating scoundrels who give lip service to their stated goal but who in reality use the police power of the state to enrich themselves.
And, if collectivism is really such a good idea, why has it failed so miserably in the countries which have most thoroughly adopted that economic system?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2014 9:44:15 GMT -8
Collectivist? What a loaded word. Kiss off, William.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Mar 10, 2014 10:47:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 10, 2014 11:28:55 GMT -8
That's a matter of opinion. I object to many of his points, but most of all I object to his unspoken concept of wealth not really belonging to those who earned it, but to the government. I might agree with you, but you'd have to define "earned" first. Okay, how about this; money that is not taken from others at the point of a gun or in some other illegal manner. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 10, 2014 11:56:39 GMT -8
The Left sees the current wealth distribution as something shameful. But I ask you. How did the top 1% obtain their wealth? The one-percenters should not possess wealth that accrued to them by means of force, intimidation, or any illegal means whatsoever. How much of the wealth possessed by the top 1% falls into that category? Give me reliable statistics on that and we can continue the discussion in a more informed fashion. You know, there is something else that should be noted. The Left, ever working on a cartoon level of intellectual thought, see the wealth enjoyed by the very rich in the same way that Scrooge McDuck (the world's richest duck) stored his wealth. That is, in a giant square building that served as his money bin. The bin had a huge swimming pool type space that was filled with greenbacks and coins. Scrooge even had a diving board that he could use to leap into his bin and swim in the wealth accumulated there. Back to the super rich. Sure, their bank accounts are bulging. They can write six figure, even seven figure checks and feel little or no pain. But the fact is that the vast percentage of the wealth of people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is not in their pockets or even in their checking accounts. It exists in investments in various companies and financial instruments such as real estate and muni bonds. That money does not just sit in a fault a la Scrooge McDuck's money bin. No, that money is working to create jobs, pay workers, even fund colleges and universities. (Try looking up how much money Boone Pickens has given to Okie State!) Now, I'm realize that hard core Lefties are absolutely sure that government pols and bureaucrats are capable of using that money more productively than are the plutocrats. I beg to differ. At any rate the vast majority of the wealth controlled by the richest citizens is hard at work building the economy. I'm not unhappy with that. As for the people at the low end of the scale, they are certainly in a tough situation. But would they be better off in a country with (supposedly) a more equal distribution of wealth, say North Korea? Tell me, would you rather be poor in Detroit or in Pyongyang? And we must ask ourselves who are the people at the bottom? How did they end up there? Were there things they could have done to avoid their extreme poverty? Decisions they made that they should not have? In many cases the answer is no, especially in the case of children and disabled elderly. Those we need to help. But plenty of the people who are poor (even though there are many, many government programs and private charities that offer a helping hand and thus make their poverty much less grinding) need not have ended up so poor. Yes, the job situation is bad and not getting much better. But still, at some point we need to separate those whose unfortunate situation is no fault of their own from those who have, for whatever reason, failed to take advantage of the opportunities that were open to them. In short, the cartoon type of thinking engaged in by Occupy Wallstreet and other loony Lefties is not productive. Unless you aspire to live in a comic book world, that is. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 10, 2014 12:16:16 GMT -8
I must admit that I am biased against anything Krugman puts out. This piece gives a bunch of opinion with little or no factual data to prove or even support his ideas. You might start reading the comments to see that the most logical arguments are from those that disagree with Krugman. We have had this same discussion many times and one of the points that never seems to sink in is that you must decide is owned (not earned) wealth more effective in the hands of the people who built it or is it more effective after being diluted buy government and put in the hands of those who make poor economic choices. Where does more good come from, a 10K muni bond that builds a water storage dam or that 10K taken from those who earned it, wasted in part by government wages and bureaucratic waste and such before the remainder is invested in that water project.
With few exceptions money is more efficient in private hands than in the hands of government. This may seem a little off topic but in reality income redistribution can never be efficient or fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2014 12:58:18 GMT -8
I must admit that I am biased against anything Krugman puts out. This piece gives a bunch of opinion with little or no factual data to prove or even support his ideas. You might start reading the comments to see that the most logical arguments are from those that disagree with Krugman. We have had this same discussion many times and one of the points that never seems to sink in is that you must decide is owned (not earned) wealth more effective in the hands of the people who built it or is it more effective after being diluted buy government and put in the hands of those who make poor economic choices. Where does more good come from, a 10K muni bond that builds a water storage dam or that 10K taken from those who earned it, wasted in part by government wages and bureaucratic waste and such before the remainder is invested in that water project. With few exceptions money is more efficient in private hands than in the hands of government. This may seem a little off topic but in reality income redistribution can never be efficient or fair. There links to IMF studies in the text that supported thesis. Did you miss those? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2014 13:01:59 GMT -8
The Left sees the current wealth distribution as something shameful. But I ask you. How did the top 1% obtain their wealth? The one-percenters should not possess wealth that accrued to them by means of force, intimidation, or any illegal means whatsoever. How much of the wealth possessed by the top 1% falls into that category? Give me reliable statistics on that and we can continue the discussion in a more informed fashion. You know, there is something else that should be noted. The Left, ever working on a cartoon level of intellectual thought, see the wealth enjoyed by the very rich in the same way that Scrooge McDuck (the world's richest duck) stored his wealth. That is, in a giant square building that served as his money bin. The bin had a huge swimming pool type space that was filled with greenbacks and coins. Scrooge even had a diving board that he could use to leap into his bin and swim in the wealth accumulated there. Back to the super rich. Sure, their bank accounts are bulging. They can write six figure, even seven figure checks and feel little or no pain. But the fact is that the vast percentage of the wealth of people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is not in their pockets or even in their checking accounts. It exists in investments in various companies and financial instruments such as real estate and muni bonds. That money does not just sit in a fault a la Scrooge McDuck's money bin. No, that money is working to create jobs, pay workers, even fund colleges and universities. (Try looking up how much money Boone Pickens has given to Okie State!) Now, I'm realize that hard core Lefties are absolutely sure that government pols and bureaucrats are capable of using that money more productively than are the plutocrats. I beg to differ. At any rate the vast majority of the wealth controlled by the richest citizens is hard at work building the economy. I'm not unhappy with that. As for the people at the low end of the scale, they are certainly in a tough situation. But would they be better off in a country with (supposedly) a more equal distribution of wealth, say North Korea? Tell me, would you rather be poor in Detroit or in Pyongyang? And we must ask ourselves who are the people at the bottom? How did they end up there? Were there things they could have done to avoid their extreme poverty? Decisions they made that they should not have? In many cases the answer is no, especially in the case of children and disabled elderly. Those we need to help. But plenty of the people who are poor (even though there are many, many government programs and private charities that offer a helping hand and thus make their poverty much less grinding) need not have ended up so poor. Yes, the job situation is bad and not getting much better. But still, at some point we need to separate those whose unfortunate situation is no fault of their own from those who have, for whatever reason, failed to take advantage of the opportunities that were open to them. In short, the cartoon type of thinking engaged in by Occupy Wallstreet and other loony Lefties is not productive. Unless you aspire to live in a comic book world, that is. AzWm The one with the cartoon ideas is you, William, You come up with some strawman cartoons of what liberal think and go from there. Sad that you can be so ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 10, 2014 13:11:02 GMT -8
I must admit that I am biased against anything Krugman puts out. This piece gives a bunch of opinion with little or no factual data to prove or even support his ideas. You might start reading the comments to see that the most logical arguments are from those that disagree with Krugman. We have had this same discussion many times and one of the points that never seems to sink in is that you must decide is owned (not earned) wealth more effective in the hands of the people who built it or is it more effective after being diluted buy government and put in the hands of those who make poor economic choices. Where does more good come from, a 10K muni bond that builds a water storage dam or that 10K taken from those who earned it, wasted in part by government wages and bureaucratic waste and such before the remainder is invested in that water project. With few exceptions money is more efficient in private hands than in the hands of government. This may seem a little off topic but in reality income redistribution can never be efficient or fair. There links to IMF studies in the text that supported thesis. Did you miss those? Not missed and not convincing. Read the comments. Try to figure out some real economic ideas such as efficiency of capital, velocity of money, and misuse of money by government and misguided goals of liberal governments. Hard I know. Also try to address ideas rather than just calling AW names. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 10, 2014 13:15:32 GMT -8
Interesting if accurate. The question should then be how to correct things. If taxing away wealth from some rather than creating an environment that offers more opportunity is part of your answer then you have no clue how things really work. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2014 13:35:20 GMT -8
There links to IMF studies in the text that supported thesis. Did you miss those? Not missed and not convincing. Read the comments. Try to figure out some real economic ideas such as efficiency of capital, velocity of money, and misuse of money by government and misguided goals of liberal governments. Hard I know. Also try to address ideas rather than just calling AW names. IMF reports mean nothing to you, but comments from people who agree with you are gold. Funny. I read a dozen or so comments, a mixed bag. Most, though, agreed with Krugman. As to real economic ideas, I took economics, accounting, finance and all that good stuff in college. Very useful to me. If William thinks I have called him names I am sure he can increase my threat level some more. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 10, 2014 17:56:24 GMT -8
Okay, how about this; money that is not taken from others at the point of a gun or in some other illegal manner. AzWm I'm afraid our definitions of "earn" might differ just a little bit... To my eyes, for example, buying up entire city blocks and then sitting on your ass waiting for them to appreciate in value constitutes neither "work" nor "earning." Some one earned the capital and taking away in taxes destroys the capital base. I see your point but still think that is better than confiscating the property when a death occurs then turning the property into a government "project". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 10, 2014 17:59:53 GMT -8
Not missed and not convincing. Read the comments. Try to figure out some real economic ideas such as efficiency of capital, velocity of money, and misuse of money by government and misguided goals of liberal governments. Hard I know. Also try to address ideas rather than just calling AW names. IMF reports mean nothing to you, but comments from people who agree with you are gold. Funny. I read a dozen or so comments, a mixed bag. Most, though, agreed with Krugman. As to real economic ideas, I took economics, accounting, finance and all that good stuff in college. Very useful to me. If William thinks I have called him names I am sure he can increase my threat level some more. Maybe your education like a polio shot did not "take".  I am not sure if calling someone ignorant is name calling or not in their mind. If he does, he will most likely just ignore it and consider it capitulation as I do when people resort to that kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2014 19:33:16 GMT -8
IMF reports mean nothing to you, but comments from people who agree with you are gold. Funny. I read a dozen or so comments, a mixed bag. Most, though, agreed with Krugman. As to real economic ideas, I took economics, accounting, finance and all that good stuff in college. Very useful to me. If William thinks I have called him names I am sure he can increase my threat level some more. Maybe your education like a polio shot did not "take". I am not sure if calling someone ignorant is name calling or not in their mind. If he does, he will most likely just ignore it and consider it capitulation as I do when people resort to that kind of thing. The sort of thing like saying my education did not take? I think I will call that capitulation on your part. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 11, 2014 12:04:17 GMT -8
Maybe your education like a polio shot did not "take". I am not sure if calling someone ignorant is name calling or not in their mind. If he does, he will most likely just ignore it and consider it capitulation as I do when people resort to that kind of thing. The sort of thing like saying my education did not take? I think I will call that capitulation on your part. What else am I to think when you can't grasp the most simple of economic realities? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 11, 2014 12:14:35 GMT -8
The sort of thing like saying my education did not take? I think I will call that capitulation on your part. What else am I to think when you can't grasp the most simple of economic realities? Capitulation, by your own terms. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 11, 2014 12:36:06 GMT -8
What else am I to think when you can't grasp the most simple of economic realities? Capitulation, by your own terms. and childish as well. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 11, 2014 13:25:35 GMT -8
Capitulation, by your own terms. and childish as well. Once again, capitulation by your own terms. |
|
