|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
#23687348 - 09/28/16 04:03 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
and you're one of those guys who constantly does this whole shtick, for every single retort you have to offer, it's just this same "he's one of those" and "oh another thing from a" bullshit, that provides nothing but entertainment over how little you can actually eke out a point in a discussion, about politics, no less; implying that you are seriously deficient....
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,362
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 57 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: akira_akuma]
#23687606 - 09/28/16 05:18 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
His deficiencies are rather explicit, in my view.
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#23687645 - 09/28/16 05:29 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i know, this is polemic practice, and i am a bully, but he seriously won't stop pummelling himself, i swear.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,362
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 57 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: akira_akuma] 1
#23687649 - 09/28/16 05:30 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Because he doesnt realize he is
--------------------
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#23687792 - 09/28/16 06:11 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Good job shitting up the thread guys,
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,362
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 57 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
#23687943 - 09/28/16 06:48 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Speaking of shit, did yall know they can do fecal transplants now to combat intestinal infections?
Shits crazy.
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#23687965 - 09/28/16 06:57 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
fake poo?!
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,362
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 57 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: akira_akuma]
#23687968 - 09/28/16 06:58 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Real poo from non-intestinal infected people
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,362
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 57 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#23687970 - 09/28/16 06:59 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They just squirt it in your colon and it works idk its crazy
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#23687978 - 09/28/16 07:01 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
clearly shit is underrated. it's got good bacteria on it that'll heal your shit up, i mean, without shit, where would we be...all infected with infected poo, that's where we'd be.
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: Real poo from non-intestinal infected people 
dude.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] 1
#23687993 - 09/28/16 07:04 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Poverty wasn’t a major problem in the U.S. like it is today until the mid 19th century.
If you have evidence to prove you didn't just make that up, I'd love to see it.
Quote:
amp244 said: yes they had taxes, as the gov’t always has. The difference between a tax on whiskey and the tax on income, is the tax on income is a tax on a necessity, while the tax on whiskey is on a luxury.
So taxing something a poor person might like to use is a luxury tax, while taxing a millionaire on his income is a tax on a "necessity"? 
Quote:
amp244 said: When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity.
Empirical studies of the Laffer curve prove that is a false claim:
63.5% - Mathias Trabandt, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve & Harald Uhlig, Department of Economics, University of Chicago 70% - Charles L. Ballard, Don Fullerton, John B. Shoven, and John Whalley, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 84% - Christina D. Romer, Department of Economics, UC Berkeley and David H. Romer, Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley 83% - Thomas Piketty, Professor, Paris School of Economics, Emmanuel Saez, Professor of Economics UC Berkeley
The mid range of studies show the Laffer curve doesn't peak until around a 70% tax rate. After all, would you rather earn $1 billion and get taxed at 70%, or would you rather earn nothing and pay no taxes???
Quote:
amp244 said: I don’t understand how people think taxing people is a way to grow anything in the macro sense. You are just shifting money from one pocket to the next, the arithmetic just doesn’t work out. Churchill and I “contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If you want to rob the rich and give to the poor, than that’s what you want to do, but that isn’t going to grow the economy.
I don't think people are arguing taxation leads to growth, but you just nailed a great reason for it. You tax people who keep all the wealth their employees earn for them, and then you restore some of it back to those employees so they can consume more thereby helping the economy.
Quote:
amp244 said: An economy grows as its demand for labor grows. Its demand for labor grows as landlords and investors seize on opportunities to turn a profit.
If there is a demand for a product, entrepreneurs will fill that demand. Increased demand comes from getting more money into the hands of many consumers rather than few billionaires.
Quote:
amp244 said: When your gov’t kills the profit incentive and sets up policies to take what the rich have earned through prudence, you drive money and jobs out of the country. So go ahead with your ambitions to lessen the wealth disparity by destroying wealth and the economy at large, as if one is kept poor by virtue of the fact that one is wealthy.
Again, the profit incentive isn't killed until the tax rate is over 70% (which I am NOT arguing for). Globalism does create unique challenges, which Bernie and Trump have been addressing.
Quote:
amp244 said: I agree with you on one thing. When you say money has corrupted the gov’t, I agree, with one qualification: I would change “money” to “Wall Street” or “Special-Interests”. I think money in and of itself gets a bad rep and that in its absence the power to control and direct the labor of other men would still be the object of exploitative entities, and that money is but a necessary vehicle for exchange in an advanced economy with the division of labor; but that’s a completely different argument. When people contend that the super-rich aren’t pulling their fair share, then concede that the super-rich are controlling the government, they should then realize that these super-rich CREATED the big government in order to SOLIDIFY and INSURE their presence as our masters.
Agreed.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
amp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
|
|
Falcon you are just incredibly confused. The laffer curve represents the relationship between tax rates and government revenue. It has nothing to do with economic growth. So congratulations on being irrelevant. I'm focusing on economic growth, not maximum effective government taxation.
Also all of those sources show multiple curves based on different levels of labor supply elasticity. The demand for labor has a major impact on the laffer curve, as your sources state, you just handpicked the ones you liked.
"If there is a demand for a product, entrepreneurs will fill that demand." -Unless there isn't a profit margin large enough to risk the investment because the government pumped its taxes up to 70%.
The rest of your post is typical balderdash.
Here is your "proof" of U.S. History that you are apparently incapable of researching yourself. You could just google "The history of poverty in the U.S." Or "Poverty in the U.S. 1800's" or some shit and figure this shit out yourself.
Monkkonen, Eric H., ed. Walking to Work: Tramps in America, 1790-1935. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.
-------------------- How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
Edited by amp244 (09/28/16 07:28 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23688152 - 09/28/16 07:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Falcon you are just incredibly confused. The laffer curve represents the relationship between tax rates and government revenue. It has nothing to do with economic growth. So congratulations on being irrelevant. I'm focusing on economic growth, not maximum effective government taxation.
Why do you think government revenue goes down when the tax rate reaches a certain level? Because people become disincentivized to work at that point. I was responding to your statement that "When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity." But the fact is that people continue to work until the tax rate gets to around 70%, disproving your point. Sure, people might be upset with a 50% tax rate, but it won't stop them from working because 50% of a lot is better than 100% of nothing.
Quote:
amp244 said: Also all of those sources show multiple different curves based on different levels of labor supply elasticity. The demand for labor has a major impact on the laffer curve, as your sources state, you just handpicked the ones you liked.
I picked every study I could find from a reputable source. If you have others from a reputable source showing something different, please post.
Quote:
amp244 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If there is a demand for a product, entrepreneurs will fill that demand.
-Unless there isn't a profit margin large enough to risk the investment because the government pumped its taxes up to 70%.
Once again: "the profit incentive isn't killed until the tax rate is over 70% (which I am NOT arguing for)."
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
amp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
|
|
Your argument is fallacious. Firstly because the 70% determination is not a static, final answer figure, and 2nd your conclusion that the 70% figure means that "people are working until they are taxed at 70%" is just simply a non sequitur. I understand you struggle with intermediate level concepts so I'll just let you argue with yourself from here on out.
Although I sure would like to hear from Quantum or Relic, instead of Falcon. We were enjoying quite a few pages of Falcon free debate until just recently here, now every post is getting chopped to shit, taken out of context, obfuscated, and shat all over.
-------------------- How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
Edited by amp244 (09/28/16 07:52 PM)
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
#23688209 - 09/28/16 07:52 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Clinton didn't lower the debt, but he did manage a budget surplus (At the behest of GOP congress, yay bipartisanship). Had the surplus stood-thanks Bush-the deficit would have fallen. I'm a little fuzzy on how the debt increased with a surplus,
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23688214 - 09/28/16 07:53 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
if the world was dependant on people that wanted to oversimplify economics, we'd all be humping rocks at the Georgia Guidestones, i'd imagine.
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: akira_akuma]
#23688271 - 09/28/16 08:08 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ive got no clue what the above post means, but fuck yeah, up the Irons!
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Crumist] 1
#23688348 - 09/28/16 08:30 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
if we weren't able to contemplate risk (eh...eh?) and make wayfare of our currency, we might as well be bashing are dicks in with rocks as an economic venture...to save on expenditures, you know.
|
ChemicalSpark


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 2,057
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: akira_akuma]
#23688379 - 09/28/16 08:41 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by ChemicalSpark (03/23/20 08:29 PM)
|
amp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Threadcy [Re: Crumist]
#23688385 - 09/28/16 08:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said: Clinton didn't lower the debt, but he did manage a budget surplus (At the behest of GOP congress, yay bipartisanship). Had the surplus stood-thanks Bush-the deficit would have fallen. I'm a little fuzzy on how the debt increased with a surplus, 
This is because Clinton was paying down the public debt by borrowing from intragovernmental holdings, like Social Security! Yay! So he was able disguise the actual deficit he was running and make it look like a surplus. The reason the National debt never went down is because the National debt is Public debt + Intragovernmental Holdings that the gov't is also liable for. Clinton actually ran deficits, he just borrowed money from Social Security and other programs to make it appear as if he were running a surplus. He did come very close to balancing the budget, though he never actually did it, as is evidenced by the National Debt climbing in every year of his presidency. You could have a surplus without paying down the debt, but you can't have a surplus with a debt increase. That's what he had.
-------------------- How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
|
|