Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% [Archive]

RandomGuy

04-08-2011, 12:35 PM

Fail...

It's not a zero sum game.

The Wealthy have seen their taxes fall over the last few decades.

If giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the economy so much, woulnd't one expect much more growth in that period of time?

And if it really does "trickle down", why has the concentration gotten so much more acute?

You are right in that it isn't a zero sum game. Our system is disporportionately benefiting only the wealthy.

The lower rates of social mobility in the US compared to the big bad socialist bugaboos in Europe suggests this strongly.

Wild Cobra

04-08-2011, 12:41 PM

How can there be growth when we don't produce much any more?

Production equals growth of wealth. We need to return manufacturing jobs here. Focusing on the rich is doing no one any good.

RandomGuy

04-08-2011, 12:59 PM

How can there be growth when we don't produce much any more?

Production equals growth of wealth. We need to return manufacturing jobs here. Focusing on the rich is doing no one any good.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

I would think that focusing on the rich to tax them more, then put those taxes to work providing solid education to those with less access to higher education would be doing *someone* some good.

I ask simply: How much money does any one human being really need to have?

Wild Cobra

04-08-2011, 01:00 PM

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

Are you a communist?

Marcus Bryant

04-08-2011, 01:22 PM

Fail...

It's not a zero sum game.

Except when the reinvestment goes offshore. But, yes, from a consumption viewpoint life is grand.

Marcus Bryant

04-08-2011, 01:23 PM

Are you a communist?

How does one prove that they are not?

Wild Cobra

04-08-2011, 01:24 PM

How does one prove that they are not?
I'm not asking for proof. Just asking.

boutons_deux

04-08-2011, 01:30 PM

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

Bull fucking shit, which ideologically blinds your hate-govt eyes.

Many govt-financed university researches and govt's own research produces innovations that get picked up by corporations, often a little of no cost, with taxpayers paying the research costs.

101A

04-08-2011, 01:31 PM

The Wealthy have seen their taxes fall over the last few decades.

If giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the economy so much, woulnd't one expect much more growth in that period of time?

It has, a lot.

Stop looking at only our borders. (had an epiphany on this one)

And if it really does "trickle down", why has the concentration gotten so much more acute?

Because so few of us are in position to direct to where things trickle. Many people on the planet now make $25 a month instead of $2, for instance.

You are right in that it isn't a zero sum game. Our system is disporportionately benefiting only the wealthy.

The lower rates of social mobility in the US compared to the big bad socialist bugaboos in Europe suggests this strongly.

Again, there is social mobility, and it is a direct result of wealthy people from this country and other countries hiring people with capital they have gained through tax cuts; much of it, unfortunately, is not on our shores. Again, I get offers monthly to ship 25 - 30 jobs overseas (India); the offers are economically compelling.

That said, if my taxes go up significantly, I can't promise I wouldn't have to figure out how to trim the fat out of my company's budget.

Wild Cobra

04-08-2011, 01:31 PM

Bull fucking shit, which ideologically blinds your hate-govt eyes.

Many govt-financed university researches and govt's own research produces innovations that get picked up by corporations, often a little of no cost, with taxpayers paying the research costs.
Can you list some products?

101A

04-08-2011, 01:33 PM

...Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations,...

Class warfare rhetoric; I call bullshit. Talking about taxes on 1% (3,000,000 people), and those that benefit from anti-trust legislation (can't be a number anything like that), is hyperbole.

101A

04-08-2011, 01:34 PM

Can you list some products?

:corn:

Marcus Bryant

04-08-2011, 01:50 PM

I ask simply: How much money does any one human being really need to have?

Don't you mean 'how little'?

Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.

I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a shitload and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.

And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.

Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.

boutons_deux

04-08-2011, 01:53 PM

overview:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-Research.pdf

US govt makes millions annually in research grants to private companies and universities.

101A

04-08-2011, 02:15 PM

Don't you mean 'how little'?

Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.

I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a shitload and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.

And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.

Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.

From a poster in the most recent National Geographic:

It bands income levels. The TOP band is $12,100 per year and above.

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 12:10 AM

RG...

Why to you covet other people's wealth?

Jealousy isn't good you know. Do you live like that with everything and apply it to everyone?

Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?

Capt Bringdown

04-09-2011, 01:37 AM

"We've had to struggle with the old enemies of peace. Business and financial monopolies, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism,
war profiteering. They have the gall to consider the government of the United
States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. And we know now, that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mobs."

FDR, 1936

czvHtOh_Xew

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 04:34 AM

FDR was wrong. It's more dangerous.

greyforest

04-09-2011, 04:59 AM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/S8nCK1cqn1I/AAAAAAAAMdg/sj44nFy3MWQ/s1600/Gap+that+Gave+Us+the+Great+Depression.jpg

A graph is worth a thousand words.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 05:06 AM

Statistical correlation is not equipollent to causation.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 05:07 AM

Two data points do the trick for you?

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 05:07 AM

lol a thousand words. you didn't even have ten.

greyforest

04-09-2011, 05:15 AM

Statistical correlation is not equipollent to causation.

Wait...

You don't think that the annual income tax rate on the highest income bracket has any effect on the annual income of those people?

That's just a correlation that when the tax goes down they start making 97,600% the annual salary of an average American? That's not a causal relationship?

Damn. That's pretty damn dumb to think that.

lol a thousand words. you didn't even have ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 10:15 AM

A graph is worth a thousand words.
It aint worth shit since it stops at 2006. What about the last 4 years?

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 11:26 AM

Wait...

You don't think that the annual income tax rate on the highest income bracket has any effect on the annual income of those people?I'm not sure what effect it has. I don't think you know either.

That's just a correlation that when the tax goes down they start making 97,600% the annual salary of an average American? That's not a causal relationship?

Damn. That's pretty damn dumb to think that.More fiat. You demonstrated dick-all and think you hung the moon. That's pretty dumb.

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 11:34 AM

The richest of the rich don't pay income tax rates. They probably pay mostly capital gains rates. I'm pretty sure those who get caught up the worse with marginal rate increases at the top end are Chapter S business.

Why do you guys want to hurt small business and lottery winners?

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 11:34 AM

Class warfare rhetoric; I call bullshit. Talking about taxes on 1% (3,000,000 people), and those that benefit from anti-trust legislation (can't be a number anything like that), is hyperbole.
Wow really? If nothing else, the amount of consolidation in the financial sector affected us all very closely. You know anyone that doesn't use a bank? You know anyone that has a home loan?

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 11:35 AM

Don't get me wrong, I think excessive concentration of wealth is bad. I think oligarchy is bad. But your graph doesn't prove shit.

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 11:36 AM

Don't you mean 'how little'?

Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.

I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a shitload and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.

And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.

Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.

Yeah, I hear no one tried to get rich when the tax rate was higher. Why make an extra 100k if that means I have to pay an extra 20k in taxes? I mean, that extra button pushing by my accountant is certainly not worth the tends of thousands more in dollars I would have.

I mean we're racing to the bottom!

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 11:44 AM

The paradigm in thinking of what capitalism is needs to change in our society. This is not an argument against capitalism, but merely a need for a fuller understanding of exactly everything it means. The wealth someone attains is not simply money. It is fundamental power. We all recognize that the more money you have the more opportunities open up and the more efficiently you are able to use almost any system in our country. This includes the political system.

It is completely in interests of our society to keep that power spread out as much as possible. We recognize this quite well in many other ways. We do not consolidate power in one branch of government or in one person. Our antitrust legislation attempts to avoid monopolies in order to facilitate better business. Well, in order to facilitate better government, I think you have to take that same mindset to wealth.

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 11:53 AM

Manny, I agree with those thoughts in so many ways. However, nobody seems to have an acceptable solution. You don't achieve any good by trying to confiscate more of it through taxation.

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 11:56 AM

The endgame of successful capitalism is the consolidation of wealth among the few. We're seeing it quite well in the United States right now.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 01:51 PM

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

baseline bum

04-09-2011, 01:53 PM

The endgame of successful capitalism is the consolidation of wealth among the few. We're seeing it quite well in the United States right now.

Shouldn't the endgame of capitalism-in-theory be perfect competition? Sounds more like you're talking about what Chomsky called capitalism-in-practice.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 01:56 PM

http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/jayadev_bowles.pdf

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 02:00 PM

101A, if your contention is that lowered taxes have helped the productivity of the world, and not so much the US, what solution is there? Wait until other nations working wages become equivalent to ours?

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 02:02 PM

Don't get me wrong, I think excessive concentration of wealth is bad. I think oligarchy is bad. But your graph doesn't prove shit.

Can anyone actually prove causality in the financial sector though? Economists can toad the same situation and come up with two completely opposite reasons for it, with facts to back up both sides.

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 02:03 PM

Shouldn't the endgame of capitalism-in-theory be perfect competition? Sounds more like you're talking about what Chomsky called capitalism-in-practice.

Thats what proponents of capitalism would like to believe. However, if you live in a democratic society where these two things hold true I don't see how the inevitability is anything bout a consolidation of wealth and power.

1-Children who come from families with money do better in the long run.
2-Wealth is political power.

If you get rich, then you are able to influence the political system much more. In turn your children will have a much better chance of also being rich and accruing more wealth and in turn political power. Their children will have an even better chance, etc etc.

Its really not as different from the nobility as people would like to believe.

MannyIsGod

04-09-2011, 02:04 PM

I'll read those papers later today, WH.

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 02:05 PM

To back up Manny's claim, just look at how many politicians are sons/daughters of other politicians...

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 02:06 PM

To back up Manny's claim, just look at how many politicians are sons/daughters of other politicians...
No dispute there.

How many doctors have children that follow in the profession?

Same with most good professions. The acorn generally falls nearby.

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 02:10 PM

No dispute there.

How many doctors have children that follow in the profession?

Same with most good professions. The acorn generally falls nearby.

Except doctors aren't running our country. Do you think that familial political lines are desirable?

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 02:15 PM

Except doctors aren't running our country. Do you think that familial political lines are desirable?
I don't like people being career politicians at all.

boutons_deux

04-09-2011, 02:15 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tax.png

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/09/main-street-richest-taxes/

==========

Shared sacrifice means shared only by the lower 4 quintiles, because the top quintile, the quintile that is primarily responsible for the disaster, has bought its way out of sharing anything, esp not sharing financial pain and insecurity.

btw, most non-earned/investment income people "self report" their income, the "honor system", while the payers report nothing, which is clearly an opportunity to cheat and then send their undeclared income out of the country.

Wild Cobra

04-09-2011, 02:16 PM

There goes Boutons again...

Showing his glorious jealousy and wanting to create a class warfare thread again.

boutons_deux

04-09-2011, 02:25 PM

Class warfare is real and the lower 4 quintiles have been beaten badly with no chance of coming back.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 02:35 PM

(double posted)

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 02:36 PM

There goes Boutons again...

Showing his glorious jealousy and wanting to create a class warfare thread again.Um, check the headline?

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 02:41 PM

I don't like people being career politicians at all.

Exactly my point. We need fresh ideas occasionally, and I dontthink that's well served by patriarchal/matriarchal succession in Congress.

boutons_deux

04-09-2011, 02:51 PM

ideas are cheap, even great ones, but voting for those ideas is aborted by the total control the capitalist/corporate oligarcy exerts on the govt.

Marcus Bryant

04-09-2011, 06:05 PM

Yeah, I hear no one tried to get rich when the tax rate was higher. Why make an extra 100k if that means I have to pay an extra 20k in taxes? I mean, that extra button pushing by my accountant is certainly not worth the tends of thousands more in dollars I would have.

I mean we're racing to the bottom!

I was referring to RG's question of how much was enough, not to specific policy.

Further, considering my statement immediately prior to the one you highlighted it is clear you misunderstood my point.

DMC

04-10-2011, 12:17 AM

I thought this was about motorcycle clubs when I read the title.

greyforest

04-10-2011, 03:21 AM

Wait...

You don't think that the annual income tax rate on the highest income bracket has any effect on the annual income of those people?

I'm not sure what effect it has. I don't think you know either.

Hmm.....

I'm gonna take just a blind guess here, but I'm gonna say that just maybe it's a causal relationship that when the tax on ultra rich people goes down those same people start amassing retarded amounts of money.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/S8nCK1cqn1I/AAAAAAAAMdg/sj44nFy3MWQ/s1600/Gap+that+Gave+Us+the+Great+Depression.jpg

Alas, since the graph ends in 2006 we don't know what happens after that! I think the economy has been pretty good since, right guys?

Trickle down economics is fact. After all, it's something that can easily be measured. Wealth surely trickles down from the richest Americans to the bottom 99% when their taxes are decreased.

http://investing.calsci.com/images/NetWorthByDecade.png

Winehole23

04-10-2011, 11:42 AM

Reasonable enough, maybe so. Thanks for speaking for yourself this time. Claiming the disparity caused a depression is something else again entirely.

boutons_deux

04-10-2011, 12:45 PM

One of the main causes of the Banksters' Great Depression was the $100Bs freed up by the dubya tax cuts, cuts forced through with reconciliation.

Those $Bs went looking for high returns, like with non-bank lenders making predatory loans, which fueled the housing bubble, whose bust in 2007 started the shit flowing.

The historic and growing inequality is not due to the stagnation of household income but explosion of revenue to the decile and the huge tax breaks for that decile. That much cash doesn't sit around, but goes looking for much more return than T-bonds.

boutons_deux

04-10-2011, 02:28 PM

Repug tax cuts in 2001 did not prevent:

1) continued stagnation of household income (no trickle down)

2) stagnation of job creation (lowest job creation in an 8-year period since WWII)

Wild Cobra

04-10-2011, 02:41 PM

Repug tax cuts in 2001 did not prevent:

1) continued stagnation of household income (no trickle down)

2) stagnation of job creation (lowest job creation in an 8-year period since WWII)
But can you say with certainty it wouldn't have been worse without the cuts?

I know... That's a resounding NO!

boutons_deux

04-10-2011, 02:58 PM

The huge size of the rammed-through dubya 2001 tax cuts, esp for the top brackets, should have had some positive effect, and they didn't.

There is no proof that tax cuts create jobs or produce trickle down, just like there is no proof that cutting govt spending at all levels in a depression stimulates job growth and the economy. All Repug fantasies, with no basis in fact, or in history.

Wild Cobra

04-10-2011, 02:59 PM

boutons_deux

04-10-2011, 03:06 PM

Why didn't the 2001 tax cuts increase jobs and household income?

Wild Cobra

04-10-2011, 04:54 PM

Why didn't the 2001 tax cuts increase jobs and household income?
How the hell do I know?

How do you know they didn't?

We were already on a decline. I'll bet it made the decline less. Problem is, there is no way to know for certain.

I ask you again...

Can you say with certainty it wouldn't have been worse without the cuts?

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 04:47 PM

RG...

Why to you covet other people's wealth?

Jealousy isn't good you know. Do you live like that with everything and apply it to everyone?

Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?

A man's wealth in not measured in the abundance of his possessions.

-J

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 04:49 PM

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

... or so the dogma goes.

No, I am not a communist, nor a liberarian.

I do not believe in ideologies that only work on paper.

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 04:54 PM

It has, a lot.

Stop looking at only our borders. (had an epiphany on this one)

Because so few of us are in position to direct to where things trickle. Many people on the planet now make $25 a month instead of $2, for instance.

Again, there is social mobility, and it is a direct result of wealthy people from this country and other countries hiring people with capital they have gained through tax cuts; much of it, unfortunately, is not on our shores. Again, I get offers monthly to ship 25 - 30 jobs overseas (India); the offers are economically compelling.

That said, if my taxes go up significantly, I can't promise I wouldn't have to figure out how to trim the fat out of my company's budget.

Fair points for the most part.

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 04:59 PM

Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up. :lol

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 05:04 PM

RandomGuy

04-11-2011, 05:07 PM

Don't you mean 'how little'?

Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.

I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a shitload and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.

And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.

Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.

Which is why the rest of the world views most Americans as spoiled, shallow materialists.

A criticism that is not entirely unwarranted.

Honestly, having been in the military, and learning to live out in the field gave me a very solid appreciation for how little a human being really *needs*.

Cable TV is nice and all, but my life is not threatened by its absence. :lol

baseline bum

04-11-2011, 05:28 PM

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up. :lol

1. Thou shall not confuse the terms subsidy and tax loophole.
2. Thou shall not redistribute that gained on the backs of others.
3. Thou shall collect tax mainly on the meek.
4. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's political connections.
5. Thou shall socialize all costs.
6. Thou shall not take Milton Friedman's name in vain.
7. Thou shall bomb all those who are brown, as outlined in the constitution.

I forgot the last 3. :(

greyforest

04-11-2011, 06:06 PM

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

Right, but the way it is redistributed can be a good investment or a bad investment.

Would you argue that the government should not provide schools?

Wild Cobra

04-11-2011, 06:55 PM

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up. :lol
LOL...

I don't know if I can...

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Thou shalt not covet they neighbors....

Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Thou shalt not worship graven images/idols

Well, I'm past half, and starting to have trouble. Probably get all ten if I think about it for a while.

You didn't mean verbatim did you?

Wild Cobra

04-11-2011, 06:57 PM

Right, but the way it is redistributed can be a good investment or a bad investment.

Would you argue that the government should not provide schools?
The federal government should not do most of what it does. If you believe in the tenth amendment, you would agree.

LnGrrrR

04-11-2011, 07:07 PM

LOL...

I don't know if I can...

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Thou shalt not covet they neighbors....

Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Thou shalt not worship graven images/idols

Well, I'm past half, and starting to have trouble. Probably get all ten if I think about it for a while.

You didn't mean verbatim did you?

Surprised you forgot the "honor thy parents" one. And the "thou shalt not commit adultery" one. And the "thou shalt not steal" one.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2011, 07:11 PM

Surprised you forgot the "honor thy parents" one. And the "thou shalt not commit adultery" one. And the "thou shalt not steal" one.
I remember the stealing and using the Lord's name in vain right after submitting, but didn't go back and add it.

MannyIsGod

04-11-2011, 08:07 PM

I agree.

Quite frankly, I don't think *anyone* on either side would disagree with this:

Wealth = power

This would strongly imply that increasing concentrations of wealth are about as corrosive to actual democracy as giving too much power to any one branch or sector of government.

Bingo.

ElNono

04-11-2011, 08:10 PM

When you see that people with a good chunk of money put it on virtual goods like derivatives, energy futures et all, you can see why trickle down is a big fallacy.

MannyIsGod

04-11-2011, 08:25 PM

Might as well be at Vegas betting on black.

RandomGuy

04-12-2011, 10:18 AM

When you see that people with a good chunk of money put it on virtual goods like derivatives, energy futures et all, you can see why trickle down is a big fallacy.

One fact from the financial crisis sticks in my mind.

Credit default swaps are voluntarily reported to a non-profit that tracks them (meaning the total amount reported is *less* than what is out there by some unknown amount).

There are, according to the data they had at the time, $60Tn of these kinds of contracts alone.

RandomGuy

04-12-2011, 10:26 AM

Might as well be at Vegas betting on black.

That is, in essence, what a credit default swap is, especially a "naked" credit default swap, in which the person making the "bet" has no direct stake in the transaction.

If you are a large manufacturing company, you might take out some insurance in case one of your important parts subcontractors goes belly up. That is prudent and is more formal insurance.

Naked credit default swaps is like one guy walking up to his bookie and saying "I'll bet you this guy over there defaults on his debt." In this case however, many financial institutions and hedge funds were the bookie that can't cover all his bets when it goes south.

That is exactly what happened at AIG. The government stepped in and backed up the bookie arm of AIG to pay off the marks it had outstanding to companies like Goldman Sachs.

The really sad thing is that I am not exaggerating, nor is it an inaccurate analogy. Our credit crisis was made much worse by a lot of really bad bookies who called themselves "hedge fund managers".

All the financial "innovation" boils down to little more than sophisticated bookmaking. The fucked part is that the bookies are bitching that we might actually require them to hold a bit more cash to cover their bets.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

boutons_deux

04-12-2011, 10:38 AM

Fabulous Fabrice put together $1B of shit for Paulsen who bet the shit was going to shit, then Fab sold it to investors, it went bad, investors lost, and Paulsen won huge. Fab Fab is adored on Wall St. which nakedly exposes Wall St criminal corruption.

greyforest

04-12-2011, 10:55 AM

The federal government should not do most of what it does. If you believe in the tenth amendment, you would agree.

You didn't answer my question at all.

Obviously the federal government should not do most of what it does. We aren't talking about most of what it does, we're talking about public schools.

Should the government provide public schools?

MannyIsGod

04-12-2011, 11:05 AM

That is, in essence, what a credit default swap is, especially a "naked" credit default swap, in which the person making the "bet" has no direct stake in the transaction.

If you are a large manufacturing company, you might take out some insurance in case one of your important parts subcontractors goes belly up. That is prudent and is more formal insurance.

Naked credit default swaps is like one guy walking up to his bookie and saying "I'll bet you this guy over there defaults on his debt." In this case however, many financial institutions and hedge funds were the bookie that can't cover all his bets when it goes south.

That is exactly what happened at AIG. The government stepped in and backed up the bookie arm of AIG to pay off the marks it had outstanding to companies like Goldman Sachs.

The really sad thing is that I am not exaggerating, nor is it an inaccurate analogy. Our credit crisis was made much worse by a lot of really bad bookies who called themselves "hedge fund managers".

All the financial "innovation" boils down to little more than sophisticated bookmaking. The fucked part is that the bookies are bitching that we might actually require them to hold a bit more cash to cover their bets.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Its worse than that though. Its like GS is not only betting on the Spurs losing to the Lakers, but they have enough power to go out and make sure Tim Duncan gets a nice beat down and two broken legs before game one.

Goldman Sachs bet against the very same MBS they were selling with CDS they were buying from AIG. The fact that we were made to pay those CDS at 100% as terms of the AIG bailout was absolutely sickening.

MannyIsGod

04-12-2011, 11:07 AM

If that doesn't prove that GS has too much influence then I don't know what will.

TeyshaBlue

04-12-2011, 11:37 AM

If that doesn't prove that GS has too much influence then I don't know what will.

:tu

Wild Cobra

04-12-2011, 06:41 PM

You didn't answer my question at all.

Obviously the federal government should not do most of what it does. We aren't talking about most of what it does, we're talking about public schools.

Should the government provide public schools?
I have stated on several posts the Department of education should have never been formed, and that schools have gone downhill since. The federal government should be completely out of education, as well as so many other things it does.

Leave schools to the local communities and states.

greyforest

04-13-2011, 07:27 AM

I have stated on several posts the Department of education should have never been formed, and that schools have gone downhill since. The federal government should be completely out of education, as well as so many other things it does.

Leave schools to the local communities and states.

Right, so state and local governments should provide public schools. Schools and teachers cost a tremendous amount of money, and all of that money comes from taxes.

This is a grossly unfair redistribution of wealth from the working class to the benefit of children. See what you say here?

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

Are you a communist?

This is wrong, because the investment in the children does produce wealth - it produces literate, capable adults in the future. It benefits the whole society, just like any investment in the infrastructure. I guess if you went to public school you're a communist?

Anyway, the point is that tax money is beneficial when it's spent back on the society and the people. If it's stolen by the richest 1% and squandered on their grotesque excess, foreign wars, bridges to nowhere, failing banks, golden parachutes, GM, and other assorted bullshit, everything goes to hell!

boutons_deux

04-13-2011, 07:32 AM

"Leave schools to the local communities and states."

excellent example: your boy dubya's NCLB

"But the government does not produce any wealth"

Interstate Highway system, a national defense project, is infrastructure that has produced wealth.

the national parks have enriched the lives of millions

the military exists primarily to make the world safe for UCA predations, which certainly makes the the corporations and their capitialists stockholders extremely wealthy.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 10:29 AM

"But the government does not produce any wealth"

Interstate Highway system, a national defense project, is infrastructure that has produced wealth.

---

the military exists primarily to make the world safe for UCA predations, which certainly makes the the corporations and their capitialists stockholders extremely wealthy.
At least these are authorized by constitution, recognized for interstate and national needs.

RandomGuy

04-13-2011, 11:44 AM

Leave schools to the local communities and states.

You say that as if we do not have a compelling national interest in education of children.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 12:40 PM

You say that as if we do not have a compelling national interest in education of children.
Not at all. I simply believe in the 10th amendment and that we shouldn't have a One-size-fits-all solution at the federal level. I also believe that we don't need layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

Tell me, why is it a good thing for the federal government to control everything? That seems to be your stance when you support the feds over the states.

boutons_deux

04-13-2011, 12:41 PM

"One-size-fits-all solution at the federal level."

straw man, there is no such thing that you love to hate.

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 01:21 PM

You say that as if we do not have a compelling national interest in education of children.

There are many ways to satisfy a compelling national interest. I'm not sure the DOE is the most effective way.

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 01:29 PM

I like the idea of the DoE, but have been underwhelmed at most of the things it's done. I'm starting to think it shouldn't enforce standards, but merely collect "best practices" and collect info about the state of our schools.

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 01:30 PM

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 01:35 PM

Fussing with the window dressing is futile. Radical, fundamental change is needed. I'd not be grieved to see the end of public education as we know it.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 01:52 PM

Just remember.

There were far few educational problems before the formation of the DoE than after.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:14 PM

Really?

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 02:29 PM

lolz.

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 02:32 PM

Fussing with the window dressing is futile. Radical, fundamental change is needed. I'd not be grieved to see the end of public education as we know it.

What do you propose then?

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:43 PM

Let states and communities run schools as they see fit.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:44 PM

Have applicants pass merit based entrance exams for college admission. A high school diploma no longer cuts it.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:46 PM

End age grade schooling; base advancement on demonstrated mastery of curriculum at the student's own pace, rather than a student's age.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:49 PM

Decredential schools and teachers. Let each prove their mettle and earn their reputations.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 02:49 PM

End age grade schooling; base advancement on demonstrated mastery of curriculum at the student's own pace, rather than a student's age.
You mean like they used to, and pass kids up a grade or two, or flunk others...

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 02:50 PM

Decredential schools and teachers. Let each prove their mettle and earn their reputations.
Let teachers pay be based on merit also. Not just step advances or advances based on their schooling.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:51 PM

Beef up the vo-tech track for those less academically inclined. Let those disinclined to go to school at all drop out. Mandatory school attendance serves education badly.

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 02:52 PM

I'll repost this.

Base assumptions: Funding will be adequate and a combo of local/state/federal funding.

In the TeyshaBlue ISD, all teachers pull the same base salary. All teachers get an additional stipend for extra-curricular duties with the caveat that all extra-curricular stuff, from Drama to Athletics get the same stipend. I'll award bonuses to the top teacher in each discipline. Criteria will be a combination of student-faculty input/pass-fail % relative to their respective classes...ie...a teacher's pass fail index increases 15% over last year, and no other teacher can beat that, then that teacher should be in the running for the bonus.

The super (me) will pull down exactly 2x the base salary for a teacher. Each Principal will pull down 1.5 x base salary. Each adjunct to the above will be paid 1.25 base salary. All positions will be eligible for inflation-indexed cost of living increases as determined by the local school board.
In TBISD, all students will not succeed in the contemporary sense. Instead, students will be treated as the individuals they actually are. College bound kids will be prepped accordingly. If college is not in a kid's future by dint of aptitude and ability, then vocational training will be their course of study. This determination can be made as early as their freshman year. Success is measured by their accomplishments both in and out of their programs. It is earned, not awarded. If a student does not succeed in the college prep program, that student will be placed in the vocational program.
It is possible that a student will not succeed in either. We hate that. We also acknowledge that outcome but cannot be tasked to accomodate it.

Facility planning, financing and bonding will be the responsibility of the finance committee comprised of a rotating assignment of teachers, board members, and myself.
Curriculum decisions, including graduation/promotion criteria, will be made by the actual teachers, acting in committee and can be revised as needed. They will make these decisions based upon their experiences with the local population and their own personal knowledge-base. I will have the final say on all curirculum design/revision.
Our curriculum may be wildly different than the ISD in the next town. We don't care unless they are demonstrably better. If so, we'll co-opt what is applicable to our local district.

Attendance will not be compulsory. However, upon enrollement, it becomes compulsory. If, after enrollment, a student chooses not to attend class, for reasons classically assigned to truancy, then that student and by extension their family, will be fined a per diem fee based upon actual cost of education. Payment of the fine will be voluntary. However, any fine balance precludes promotion or graduation/certification.

The line forms to the left.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2011, 02:52 PM

Beef up the vo-tech track for those less academically inclined. Let those disinclined to go to school at all drop out. Mandatory school attendance serves education badly.
Before the DoE started mandating spending and courses, many high schools used to have "skill centers" that prepped kids for high paying jobs that didn't require college.

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:56 PM

I will have the final say on all curriculum design/revision.TeyshaBlueISD :lol

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 02:57 PM

(en serio, i like it)

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 02:57 PM

I know. Winehole ISD sounds better.:lol:toast

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 02:58 PM

*shudders to think of the school mascot*

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 03:00 PM

I know. Winehole ISD sounds better.:lol:toast:rollin

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 03:03 PM

Let states and communities run schools as they see fit.

Forgive my youth/ignorance, but isn't this roughly how it was before the DoE was established?

Have applicants pass merit based entrance exams for college admission. A high school diploma no longer cuts it.

Isn't that up to the individual colleges? I would think the states themselves should determine if they want to have exams for all college entrances. (And then again, if a school was willing to accept students without the exams, shouldn't they have the right to?)

End age grade schooling; base advancement on demonstrated mastery of curriculum at the student's own pace, rather than a student's age.

Makes sense to me, though I could see where inability to master certain parts of a curriculum may keep a child stuck. For instance, what if the child knows math at an 8th grade level, but English only at a 6th grade level? Do the classic grade distinctions still work?

Decredential schools and teachers. Let each prove their mettle and earn their reputations.

Not well versed enough to comment in this area.

Beef up the vo-tech track for those less academically inclined. Let those disinclined to go to school at all drop out. Mandatory school attendance serves education badly.

Makes sense to me, though you might get a "You're quitting on the kids" view from the public.

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 03:06 PM

I'll repost this.

Base assumptions: Funding will be adequate and a combo of local/state/federal funding.

That's a big assumption :D

... the rest

Not bad, actually. :tu

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 03:14 PM

Forgive my youth/ignorance, but isn't this roughly how it was before the DoE was established?Conforming to all my stipulations? I doubt it. There was a much greater degree of local control than there is now. Local control isn't a cure all, but the levers have to be kept close to the community served IMO.

Isn't that up to the individual colleges? I would think the states themselves should determine if they want to have exams for all college entrances. (And then again, if a school was willing to accept students without the exams, shouldn't they have the right to?)Yeah, that's a desideratum, not a mandate. A reversion to a status quo ante, if you like.

Makes sense to me, though I could see where inability to master certain parts of a curriculum may keep a child stuck. For instance, what if the child knows math at an 8th grade level, but English only at a 6th grade level? Do the classic grade distinctions still work?I see no problem there. Few students will excel at everything.

Makes sense to me, though you might get a "You're quitting on the kids" view from the public.Bring it on. I ain't skeered.

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 03:17 PM

That's a big assumption :D

Dude! It's rocket surgery!

coyotes_geek

04-13-2011, 03:22 PM

TeyshaBlue ISD

Nicely done. Good ideas.

baseline bum

04-13-2011, 03:40 PM

Have applicants pass merit based entrance exams for college admission. A high school diploma no longer cuts it.

Is an entrance exam all that useful for predicting success? It's one thing to be a good test taker, but in a decent college you'll end up doing a lot of work on problems too difficult to answer in a 2-3 hour exam.

End age grade schooling; base advancement on demonstrated mastery of curriculum at the student's own pace, rather than a student's age.

This idea seems extraordinarily expensive. I don't see how you could have a student:teacher ratio any higher than about 4:1 or so if each student gets his own lesson plan.

Beef up the vo-tech track for those less academically inclined. Let those disinclined to go to school at all drop out. Mandatory school attendance serves education badly.

This is the biggest change that needs to be made. I know lots of people will be up in arms about schools in poorer communities teaching more people to become plumbers than college students, but I think it's a way more realistic way to get money flowing into the community and hopefully equalize things in the future. The alternative is basically expecting things to change in one generation.

baseline bum

04-13-2011, 03:41 PM

*shudders to think of the school mascot*

:rollin

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 03:45 PM

Is an entrance exam all that useful for predicting success? It's one thing to be a good test taker, but in a decent college you'll end up doing a lot of work on problems too difficult to answer in a 2-3 hour exam.Why limit yourself to a two or three hour exam? Test all areas intensively. You can't predict success with an entrance exam, but you can determine who already has the chops to cut it.

This idea seems extraordinarily expensive. I don't see how you could have a student:teacher ratio any higher than about 4:1 or so if each student gets his own lesson plan.
The German gymnasium system wasn't extraordinarily expensive. What I have in mind is something a bit like that.

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 03:48 PM

Conforming to all my stipulations? I doubt it. There was a much greater degree of local control than there is now. Local control isn't a cure all, but the levers have to be kept close to the community served IMO.

I think the failures of the DoE are leading me to that belief as well. The idea behind "No Child Left Behind" is admirable, but I think the execution may be impossible.

I see no problem there. Few students will excel at everything.

I don't think I was clear. I mean, in your theoretical school, if you mastered one part of the curriculum, but not another, would you still advance in the parts you mastered? And if so, then how would that work in a classical "grade" setting? Would said student take 6th grade English and then 8th grade math? (It seems that would demolish the idea of a "grade" in the first place. Not saying that's bad.)

Bring it on. I ain't skeered.

It would at least give the kids some motivation to do well. :)

Winehole23

04-13-2011, 03:51 PM

I don't think I was clear. I mean, in your theoretical school, if you mastered one part of the curriculum, but not another, would you still advance in the parts you mastered? And if so, then how would that work in a classical "grade" setting? Would said student take 6th grade English and then 8th grade math? (It seems that would demolish the idea of a "grade" in the first place. Not saying that's bad.)Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm for the destruction of the age/grade system. Advancement has to be based on demonstrated chops in each course of study, not one's age.

boutons_deux

04-13-2011, 03:52 PM

Shouldn't the endgame of capitalism-in-theory be perfect competition? Sounds more like you're talking about what Chomsky called capitalism-in-practice.

should it be? it could be.

but capitalism demands steady and increasing dividends to capitalists(shareholders), so many companies buy other companies, allowed under pure capitalism, n'est-ce-pas?, resulting in consolidation of business sectors, less competition, and very often a cartel with price fixing and non-compete agreements.

LnGrrrR

04-13-2011, 03:53 PM

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm for the destruction of the age/grade system. Advancement has to be based on demonstrated chops in each course of study, not one's age.

Ah, I thought that was what you were getting at. Just my pedantism getting in the way again. :toast

Sounds like a video game, to be honest. "Your child just passed Math, Lvl 3! Received one CALCULATOR!"

TeyshaBlue

04-13-2011, 04:01 PM

Ah, I thought that was what you were getting at. Just my pedantism getting in the way again. :toast

Sounds like a video game, to be honest. "Your child just passed Math, Lvl 3! Received one CALCULATOR!"

Your child Gained:

3 exp pts.

2 puzzle solving pts.

5 leadership acumen pts.

4 nerd pts.

baseline bum

04-13-2011, 04:04 PM

Why limit yourself to a two or three hour exam? Test all areas intensively. You can't predict success with an entrance exam, but you can determine who already has the chops to cut it.

I'm just not a fan of in-class exams. I don't think an 8-hour exam is going to be great indicator of someone's intelligence and work ethic to meet a semester deadline, a 2-week deadline, etc. on projects where a someone can get his hands dirty and really learn/demonstrate something. Not only can in-class exams not ask questions that are all that hard, but nerves play a huge part in them too.

The German gymnasium system wasn't extraordinarily expensive. What I have in mind is something a bit like that.

I'd love to see that implemented in the United States. I interpreted your statement as one that children need more personal attention, like a Ph.D student would get for example. Germany has a lot of great solutions to complex problems that we should, but sadly never will emulate.