Mike Brown/Ferguson riots (6 Viewers)

[AFL_ITALIA]

Curious as to where this will go now. Hundreds of protesters in the Apple store.

https://twitter.com/JonVig4NY/status/541013470515572736/photo/1

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

That will teach Apple for... uh... existing.

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

http://www.vocativ.com/usa/nyc/87-chokehold-complaints-nypd/

- - - Updated - - -

Our store was looted 3 times then burned to the ground. My family has lost it's only source of income and insurance will cover not even a fourth of the money we lost. Please spread the word.

http://www.gofundme.com/beautytown
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2oe6o4/iama_the_owner_of_beauty_town_plus_located_in/

 

[Martin]

That will teach Apple for... uh... existing.

FINALLY people are protesting that abomination

 

[Zé Tahir]

Curious as to where this will go now. Hundreds of protesters in the Apple store.

https://twitter.com/JonVig4NY/status/541013470515572736/photo/1

That just looks like a staircase.

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

 

[Maddy]

Well, almost nothing works perfect anywhere, but the welfare states of western and northern Europe (even more so 20 years ago than now), aren't bad examples of highly functional systems based on what I mentioned. To be clear, I'm not proposing a competely radical system like communism, or god forbid fascism (which actually is probably much more of a political than an economic system (although of course both terms are not alway cleary seperable), and most of the times the economic system in fascist states was basically capitalist). I do for example also believe that the characteristics of a market-based trade and exchange stystem are, in most areas, extremely useful to society.
However, if the economy of a society is in all areas completely left under the regulation of "the market", extreme inequalites occur that have nothing at all to do with meritocratic values and cannot be justified in any way using rationalist and non-religous arguments. Simply put, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, up to a point were social mobility is reduced to an extreme minimum not unlike to feudal societies. What's more, this doesn't only harm lower classes, but after a certain point also the wealthy, which of course don't appreciate areas riddled with crime or large proportions of the society being only very poorly educated as well.

The notion that high taxes on capital gains, high income and the like in general, harm economic growth sounds nice and makes sense in theory, but just doesn't hold up to the facts. For example, the development of per capita GDP has been pretty much the same in all (highly) developed countries from 1980-2008, despite the massive differences concerning these taxations between let's say Sweden and the USA. Part of the reason for this is that low-end consumers having more money means them spending basically the entirety of this money, boosting demand (this might become a problem for a country if the addiotional consumption is focused on foreign goods - see Greece -, but normally, and at least globally seen benefits the economy hugely). Enterpreneurs and companies, of course not being stupid themselves, realise this potential of them being able to sell more of their products and invest accordingly. And assuming that you don't create a system of complete and total equality, which I by far am not proposing here, the number of people "leeching off the system" will be minimal and neglegible in the grand scheme of things. There are more than enough incentives for people to work and have success and in their professional lives even if they don't face living on the street without a job. In fact, the almost impossible difficulty of getting back into the economic system once you completely drop out of it (e.g. get homeless) is another reason why a strong social system is preferable, as it very often prevents this happening. Especially in times of short-term economic shocks and crisis, this can prove to be very effective in the long run, as this "dropping out" of mostly potentially useful components of the work force and decreased consumption represents a defenitive loss for the economy, which only accumulates over time. With social securities in place, a person who has recently lost his job can afford to wait for employment opportunities, during which time his consumption does not completely break off, and resume working at a later point in time.

The already alluded retaining of consumption during times of crisis is also an important benefit, and the major reason why the European states with a strong welfare state initially didn't have as much as a problem with unemployment rates during the first two years of the recent crisis (which in the meantime has of course been made obsolete by the moronic policy of extreme austerity imposed by Berlin & Co.).

I luv u dude! Started reading Piketty yet?

 

[Ocelot]

I luv u dude! Started reading Piketty yet?

Finished a week ago

Great book. I mean the last section about the capital tax is probably a bit underdeveloped, but it's not the main focus of the work anyways, and the rest is brilliant.

 

[Bjerknes]

However, if the economy of a society is in all areas completely left under the regulation of "the market", extreme inequalites occur that have nothing at all to do with meritocratic values and cannot be justified in any way using rationalist and non-religous arguments. Simply put, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, up to a point were social mobility is reduced to an extreme minimum not unlike to feudal societies. What's more, this doesn't only harm lower classes, but after a certain point also the wealthy, which of course don't appreciate areas riddled with crime or large proportions of the society being only very poorly educated as well.

But my point is even with supposed regulation and redistribution, the income gap continues to expand because the government is in bed with corporations. That's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve System. Governments are the Trojan horse for this kind of crap. In a free market system, rent-seeking wouldn't be an issue. Yes, you would have winners and losers, but at least they wouldn't be chosen by the government.

In other words, I think you have way too much trust in government

The notion that high taxes on capital gains, high income and the like in general, harm economic growth sounds nice and makes sense in theory, but just doesn't hold up to the facts. For example, the development of per capita GDP has been pretty much the same in all (highly) developed countries from 1980-2008, despite the massive differences concerning these taxations between let's say Sweden and the USA. Part of the reason for this is that low-end consumers having more money means them spending basically the entirety of this money, boosting demand (this might become a problem for a country if the addiotional consumption is focused on foreign goods - see Greece -, but normally, and at least globally seen benefits the economy hugely). Enterpreneurs and companies, of course not being stupid themselves, realise this potential of them being able to sell more of their products and invest accordingly. And assuming that you don't create a system of complete and total equality, which I by far am not proposing here, the number of people "leeching off the system" will be minimal and neglegible in the grand scheme of things. There are more than enough incentives for people to work and have success and in their professional lives even if they don't face living on the street without a job. In fact, the almost impossible difficulty of getting back into the economic system once you completely drop out of it (e.g. get homeless) is another reason why a strong social system is preferable, as it very often prevents this happening. Especially in times of short-term economic shocks and crisis, this can prove to be very effective in the long run, as this "dropping out" of mostly potentially useful components of the work force and decreased consumption represents a defenitive loss for the economy, which only accumulates over time. With social securities in place, a person who has recently lost his job can afford to wait for employment opportunities, during which time his consumption does not completely break off, and resume working at a later point in time.

The already alluded retaining of consumption during times of crisis is also an important benefit, and the major reason why the European states with a strong welfare state initially didn't have as much as a problem with unemployment rates during the first two years of the recent crisis (which in the meantime has of course been made obsolete by the moronic policy of extreme austerity imposed by Berlin & Co.).

I think that this argument is common sense, really. As someone who works in an industry rampant with system abuse, I deal with it on a daily basis. The more social programs you create, the more comfortable people are with depending on them. Folks like Al Sharpton advocate increasing funding for black communities, but they are essentially no different than crack addictions because people simply can't get off of them. I understand that some people need assistance, but this is where charities should step in, which they do.

The funny thing about these assistance programs such as electronic food stamps is that most of the revenue goes towards large corporations like Wal-Mart. So in a way, these sort of programs are essentially corporate bail outs, which is funny because liberals supposedly hate corporations. Small business see NONE of that money, those highly inefficient scumbags. Get some rent-seeking going.

The argument that increasing capital gains taxes automatically means increased demand from poor communities is nonsensical because 1) there is no guarantee the government will use the revenue for that purpose and 2) shareholders will be more inclined to dump stocks with tax increases. I know for myself, you increase capital gains taxes and I will certainly not choose to invest my money in the stock market. It's mostly a rigged game anyway because foreign central banks are able to buy S&P futures at a discount at the CME to help prop up the market, so why shouldn't individuals like myself have access to the same sort of deal? Capital gains taxes do nothing but push people like myself out of the market while the big banks reap the benefits once again.

Another case of where "regulation" is actually corporate welfare.

The police are out of control thanks to the militarization and terrorist threat perpetrated by the federal government, but citizens of urban communities need to look at themselves instead of folks like Sharpton and Obongo the Maggot pushing race politics.

Piketty

 

[j0ker]

Curious as to where this will go now. Hundreds of protesters in the Apple store.

https://twitter.com/JonVig4NY/status/541013470515572736/photo/1

Now that's a store I don't mind them looting.

 

[Bjerknes]

Finished a week ago

Great book. I mean the last section about the capital tax is probably a bit underdeveloped, but it's not the main focus of the work anyways, and the rest is brilliant.

Has Piketty ever worked in the real world, or has he been a tenured professor all his life?

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Now that's a store I don't mind them looting.

There was no looting as far as I know, just another "die-in." Was done at Macys too. I give props to the New York protesters for keeping it civil, the way it should be done . They still shut down bridges, highways, and trains though...

 

[j0ker]

There was no looting as far as I know, just another "die-in." Was done at Macys too. I give props to the New York protesters for keeping it civil, the way it should be done . They still shut down bridges, highways, and trains though...

Yeah, I was joking, half joking.

But, if they decide to loot something where ever they are, they should loot these corporate stores instead of family owned businesses.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Yeah, I was joking.

But, if they decide to loot something where ever they are, they should loot these corporate stores instead of family owned businesses.

There shouldn't be looting of anyplace, but yeah that would be a bit better

 

[Ocelot]

But my point is even with supposed regulation and redistribution, the income gap continues to expand because the government is in bed with corporations. That's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve System. Governments are the Trojan horse for this kind of crap. In a free market system, rent-seeking wouldn't be an issue. Yes, you would have winners and losers, but at least they wouldn't be chosen by the government.

In other words, I think you have way too much trust in government

Let me put this way: There is no guarantee that a strong government will naturally reduce inequalitiy, or that it doesn't become completely corrupted and a selfservice shops for big cooperations. However, with a strong government there is the possibility of keeping inequality down. What's more, it is the only possibility of keeping inequality down in a modern economic system, and with modern I pretty much mean anything after 10.000 B.C.. Besides, once inequality reaches a certein threshold there is a very real chance of large cooperations and extremely wealthy individuals taking command of a "weak government" and rigging the system even more into their favor anyway, even possibly turning it into an oppressive police state.

There has also been plenty of historical proof that strong governments can work in the way I've described: Western and northern Europe and the US ca. 1935-1970.

I think that this argument is common sense, really. As someone who works in an industry rampant with system abuse, I deal with it on a daily basis. The more social programs you create, the more comfortable people are with depending on them. Folks like Al Sharpton advocate increasing funding for black communities, but they are essentially no different than crack addictions because people simply can't get off of them. I understand that some people need assistance, but this is where charities should step in, which they do.

The funny thing about these assistance programs such as electronic food stamps is that most of the revenue goes towards large corporations like Wal-Mart. So in a way, these sort of programs are essentially corporate bail outs, which is funny because liberals supposedly hate corporations. Small business see NONE of that money, those highly inefficient scumbags. Get some rent-seeking going.

That's because just giving the poor a certain amount of money every month isn't going to change anything about the system. It's not that different from the failure of giving development aid to third world countries to keep them from starving while changing nothing about the international trade system or even improve the social and economic infrastructure there.

There is a reason why people growing up poor, crime riddled neighbourhoods almost never improve their situation, and's it's not because they just think that they'll be able to leach off the system anyway. It's because they get shit for education, are shaped by crime, violence and drug culture and the few jobs that are available to them have shitty working conditions with no security and a pay so low that they'd need to have at least two of them to make a living. It's these conditions that shape the people that experience them, not some inherent lazyness of stupidity, and it's only in the interest of society to change them.

And yeah I forgot a step in the relationship between capital taxes and investment in poor communities and social security. It's easily explained though, to finance these investments and redistributional activities, naturally increased government revenue is necessary. As of all the possible forms of taxation, taxes on wealth, especially inheritance, are the ones least harmful to economic growth (which is not to say taxes harm economic growth, given the revenue is reinvested and not stored away in some vault), they offer themselves for this purpose. As for capital gains, I believe a general progressive income tax encompassing both income from labour and income from capital would be the best solution. Of course, this would require a much higher availability of data. However, there is no reason, whether economically or ethically to tax income from capital different than income from labour.

Has Piketty ever worked in the real world, or has he been a tenured professor all his life?

Classic Ad Hominem.

Also, the point of his work is to compile statistical economic data concerning the past few centuries and analyse them, his personal life doesn't change the facts he presents.

 

[swag]

The race card is out there big time. Which is why I have to wonder: police abuse is seemingly anything but "color blind" on the victim. But what I haven't seen is police abuse being color blind, or not, by the perpetrator.

Yes, we always hear about white cops killing black men. And we never hear about black-on-black violence. Politics aside, that is certainly how the media covers things.

But what I have yet to even hear of is the case of a black police officer killing or maiming a black victim. Which means that either: a) it never happens, and thus the arguable solution is primarily more black cops in black neighborhoods, or b) it does happen but we never hear about it, that protection "behind the shield" is colorblind and supercedes any race commonalities between perpetrator and victim, and there's no interest among the media, the black community, liberals, and fuck-the-pigs types to ever bring those examples up.

I honestly don't know which one is true, but the absence of any public stories of that kind is stark and notable for me. Because in a lot of urban areas -- like NY or Cleveland or St. Louis -- there clearly are a lot of black cops.

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

AMERICA

 

[X Æ A-12]

The race card is out there big time. Which is why I have to wonder: police abuse is seemingly anything but "color blind" on the victim. But what I haven't seen is police abuse being color blind, or not, by the perpetrator.

Yes, we always hear about white cops killing black men. And we never hear about black-on-black violence. Politics aside, that is certainly how the media covers things.

But what I have yet to even hear of is the case of a black police officer killing or maiming a black victim. Which means that either: a) it never happens, and thus the arguable solution is primarily more black cops in black neighborhoods, or b) it does happen but we never hear about it, that protection "behind the shield" is colorblind and supercedes any race commonalities between perpetrator and victim, and there's no interest among the media, the black community, liberals, and fuck-the-pigs types to ever bring those examples up.

I honestly don't know which one is true, but the absence of any public stories of that kind is stark and notable for me. Because in a lot of urban areas -- like NY or Cleveland or St. Louis -- there clearly are a lot of black cops.

Pretty sure i heard about two recent incidents (only because of the whole mike brown thing) one in Utah and the other New Orleans. one of the victims was an unarmed white guy and the other was like some 12 year old black kid

police shoot like 1000 people a year in the US, and as you mentioned theres a load of black officers, so im sure there's plenty of it if you look

 

[swag]

Pretty sure i heard about two recent incidents (only because of the whole mike brown thing) one in Utah and the other New Orleans. one of the victims was an unarmed white guy and the other was like some 12 year old black kid

police shoot like 1000 people a year in the US, and as you mentioned theres a load of black officers, so im sure there's plenty of it if you look

Very reasonable point. Which suggests the issue is selective demographics that meet the necessary outrage criteria as a sort of meme theory.

 

[X Æ A-12]

viewers want their prejudices confirmed not challenged.