Thursday, April 17, 2014

Implausible Deniability

This dialogue in a nutshell:

Me: Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs.
Him: You’re a hysterical ranting liberal.
Me: That wasn’t a rant. You just personally attacked me. And I’m not a liberal.
Him: No, I didn’t attack you. Your hysterical liberal rants cloud your abiblity to reason and you spelled ‘liberal’ wrong.
Me: That makes no sense. And I didn’t spell ‘liberal’ wrong. But you spelled ‘ability’ wrong.
Him: Your rant is just a projection of your own insecurities.

Seriously. This is that fun. Only, way more.

You will experience what it’s like to debate someone who not only denies that I said what I said, but also denies that he said what he said. And invents other things that nobody said. There seems to be a growing pattern of this occurrence as of late.

A truly drug-free hallucinogenic drug trip of a conversation.

Libertarians. Sheesh.

Also, this is the first of several where I’m called a Liberal. Right-wing people seem to think plain old facts have a liberal bias.

Enjoy…

 
Dibley
Do you have the will to share this? I do. More Facts in 2014!



Thom 
 It's a damn right WRONG 

The Brain Frees 
Foreign aid is 0.2% of US GDP.
That's about $34 Billion.

The top 25 corporations that paid NO taxes in 2012 should have paid $92 Billion.

Aside from not paying the $92 Billion that they owed, they also received $22 Billion in refunds. Yes, refunds after paying NO taxes.

US corporations have about another $1.5 Trillion hidden in offshore accounts not being taxed.

That doesn't count all the corporations that didn't pay their full amount of taxes due to loopholes.

Who isn't helping their own? 

Marty

Money goes where its treated best, TBF. [Is that what corporate cash hoarders are saying these days?] There are numerous tax shelters that anyone [who is wealthy] can take advantage of, but few people take the time to learn what they are or how to use them. Tax breaks/shelters have proven to be an effective way to forester long term economic growth, and many of the biggest companies in the world were able to expand and hire more employees as a result of tax breaks/shelters; not to mention paying dividends to share holders, who took a leap of faith by investing in these companies in the first place. [Uh, no. Hiding wealth in foreign countries does not "forester" long-term economic growth in the United States. And many of the biggest companies expanded overseas by hiring people in the least-paying nations outside of America in order to hoard even more cash, resulting in job loss in America. Just look out your fucking window. It’s not like it’s a secret. You are right about this corporate strategy paying out even more profits to already wealthy shareholders, though, so I’ll give you that one.] Staring a business doesn't happen in a vacuum. Risk taking entrapenurs start businesses with money that is put into it by investors, large and small. If that investment doesn't have a significant yield to it or whatever profits that are made are seized via taxation, [Yes, 100% of profits are “seized” by big government taxation. I’m totally scared by your fear-mongering now.] then why bother with the whole enterprise in the first place? I am in no way, an apologist for large corporations, [couldafooledme] HOWEVER, blaming corporations for utilizing our broken tax system [that they paid lawmakers to break for them] to their own advantage, isn't the answer to the problem of poverty [Which is why we should simply get rid of tax loopholes that they alone can take advantage of to get out of paying taxes, unlike 95% of the country.] - neither is trusting the govt. to redistribute the wealth of one segment of the population to another via taxation or entitlement programs or subsidies or bailouts. [Ignoring the fact that taxation, entitlement programs (that you paid into, so you are ENTITLED to its benefits), and subsidies for those who need it (not banks and multi-million dollar corporations) are programs that work, when you speak of ‘redistributing the wealth of one segment of the population to another,’ you’re speaking of capitalism redistributing wealth from the workers to the CEO’s.] Maximum prosperity can only be achieved through free markets (free of govt. interventions), sound money, respect for private property, and personal liberty. Anything else, has proven in numerous instances over human history, to be some form of despotism or socialism (collectivism) - both of which lead to impoverished people who would be better off fending for themselves.

**  **

 
**  ** 

The Brain Frees

That makes sense. All those corporate tax cuts are why there are so many jobs now and the free market certainly has made the wealth trickle down, which is why there is no economic strife in America right now. And without government regulations, corporations always do the right thing, so, no worries about exploding plants or chemical & oil spills or poisoned water supplies or poisoned meats, fruits & vegetables. Your evidence-based reasoning is flawless. We should do away with the government altogether. No regulations, no taxes - America would be just perfect as a corporate-run, Fascist state. Let's do this, Ayn.

One thing, though. The democratic socialism that America runs on is not socialism. Socialism is neither despotism nor collectivism. And no democratic socialist country has ever led to impoverished people. Fiction-writers aren't the best place from which to get your economic ideas. 

Marty

Once again, TBF, you take one point and use it as a springboard to go on yet another liberal rant about whatever gets under your skin. Your augment would more persuasive IF you bothered to stay on topic - taxation - and left your histrionics on the cutting room floor. Since you didn't bother to address anything I said directly (your rant about regulations and environmental disasters aren't the subject of this tread), I refuse to acknowledge your tirade. And I would not take an economics lesson from a fiction writer any more than I would take it from a sculptor. 

[Why is it that whenever I simply present basic facts that someone doesn't like, I get ad hominem attacks? I'm said to have 'ranted' or gone on a 'tirade' or that I'm being 'histrionic' or that I'm 'liberal' (as if that's an insult). I've done none of those things. And none of those things has anything to do with what I've said. It's like people get upset that they're wrong and feel the need to personally attack me as if that diminishes the facts I've presented and somehow elevates their bullshit. But my favorite part, without question, is the inevitable: “I refuse to acknowledge your tirade.” Yes, the classic, “Only what I have to say is important and anything that contradicts what I say shall be ignored.” TPTHFTPHPPTHF!!]


The Brain Frees 
Strange. I could have sworn I stayed on topic by responding to what you said. I just tried to be brief. I didn't realize being brief about it would be considered a 'histrionic liberal rant.' None of which was liberal, by the way.

I'll be a little more expansive.

You said, "tax breaks/shelters have proven to be an effective way to forester long term economic growth, and many of the biggest companies in the world were able to expand and hire more employees as a result of tax breaks/shelters; not to mention paying dividends to share holders, who took a leap of faith by investing in these companies in the first place." I pointed out briefly that there are no jobs and corporations are actually laying people off just to keep more profits regardless of tax cuts and that our economy sucks - the opposite of what you said happens when wealthy people hoard their wealth. You were correct about one thing - the rich shareholders do become richer.

I wonder how sheltering $1.5 trillion in corporate profits in offshore accounts helps America's economy?

Wealth is not redistributing to poor people via taxation or entitlement programs or subsidies or bailouts. Wealth, for a fact, is collecting at the top. 95% of all of income gains since 2008 has gone to the top 1%. For a fact, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's the unregulated free market in action.

You said, "Maximum prosperity can only be achieved through free markets (free of govt. interventions), sound money, respect for private property, and personal liberty." We have a free market system and maximum prosperity is not being gained, but for the corporations that run the government. And when government interventions (regulations) aren't followed, we have example after example of shit blowing up and getting poisoned. As for respect of property and liberty, let's take the Freedom Industries water supply-poisoning chemical spill in West Virginia. They weren't inspected due to being free of government regulation, they found a chemical spill, ignored it, got caught and declared bankruptcy in order to socialize their losses and have the taxpayers pay for the clean up their damage that they caused. There's that respect you were talking about. The reason 300,000 people were on one water supply is because this has been happening for a couple decades in this virtually unregulated State. Whenever a water supply was poisoned by an unregulated company, they just diverted the town's water supply to an untainted one. This kept happening until 300,000 people were on one water supply. There's your "free of government regulations." Are all government regulations good? No. Some are ridiculous. But for the vast majority of regulations, they help.

(That "maximum prosperity" line, clipped from Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money is based on a scam to get you to buy gold from a corporation for their profit. Going back to the gold standard is illogical. Gold prices fluctuate just like paper currency. Our gold-based economy plunged 50% in 1907, and there was no Federal Reserve. Gold-based inflation existed before the Fed. Being tied to the rigid gold standard in an ever-increasing scale of US economy is what almost crashed us in 1971, which is why we left it. Being tied to gold while the rest of the world isn't, would destroy our economy, which would be unable to keep up. If it was the 19th century, sure let's use the gold standard. But I digress.) [I went on this gold-standard rebuke because, as a professed Libertarian, he keeps posting fact-defying articles on Facebook about buying gold and how we should go back to the gold standard.] 

Risk-taking entrepreneurs mostly take socialist loans from the government. Not just from private investors. And no matter where the money comes from, nobody built it alone. All are forms of socialism.

And you said, "Anything else, has proven in numerous instances over human history, to be some form of despotism or socialism (collectivism) - both of which lead to impoverished people who would be better off fending for themselves." This impoverished world you have compared to democratic socialism has never happened. Despotism, collectivism - sure.

And thanks for the personal attack there at the end of your speech. I appreciate it. You, regardless, are repeating 1950's Ayn Rand fiction as your economic theory. Which is currently known as Libertarianism. 

Marty

Kodos for moving from a rant to a dissertation, TBF; [I think that was supposed to be another personal insult, but I believe a dissertation is much more respectable than a rant. It suggests that I did extensive research into what I wrote. Oh, well, one will never know the Libertarian mind.] but as usual your argument is loaded with factual inaccuracies and a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic terminology/concepts of economics, Keyensian economic theory (our current economic philosophy - "monetized debt" - ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913), and how "money" is different from "currency" or how a gold standard works (and gold standards DO expand to meet the financing demands of the public.) [I am capable of keeping track of, and responding to, each of his wall-throwings. They’re written down. Hang on for a tumultuous ride.] And as for the "bank crisis" of 1905?!? (actually it occurred in 1907, TBF - not a huge error of fact on your part, [Or, at all.] but it doesn't help the overall thrust of your argument when you can't keep simple dates straight ) that was an artificial "crisis" created by none other than the giant of finance himself - J.P. Morgan - so that he could buy up shares of other companies that supplied raw materials to his "baby" US Steel, for pennies on the dollar. That event does, however, illustrate the need for some regulation and restraint of the unseemlier aspects of Capitalism. (THAT stock market was a completely unregulated mess - which bears little resemblance to today's stock market) I'll refer you to the excellent book on this whole subject called "The Creature from Jekyll Island" for additional details/data....Sheltering your income from taxation - in and of itself, doesn't do a damn thing; [Because keeping more money doesn’t result in keeping more money? Keeping money out of public works projects doesn’t result in keeping money out of public works projects? Yeah, that makes sense.] but then again, neither is giving it to the government to spend on the endless cycle of welfare to war, (military-indutrial complex to borrow from Eisenhower) and back again. Economic growth occurs when a company invests in itself by innovating new products/services, expanding its customer base and hiring more contractors/employees to meet growing demand. [Except companies don’t expand their customer base, hire more employees, or have growing demand. They cut wages so no one can afford to buy their products, they cut employees to keep more money, and as a result, cultivate a shrinking demand. But hey, how could you know this if you ignore everything that’s happening in America right now? That fantasy world is much more exciting, right?] The government "jump starting" economic activity is - at best - a temporary measure, [The whole entire point of a jump start.] but the inevitable problem is, businesses get accustomed to suckling from the government tit, and don't learn (or they forget or they have enough hubris to think that they can fool the free market better) how to be responsive to changes in customer tastes/market indicators, grossly inaccurate forecasts, etc. - I'll refer you to the automobile industry collapse/bailout as an excellent example [It’s a pretty good example – We bailed them out to jump start their business. The money was (for the most part) paid back. The car companies are back in business without a continued influx of money from the government. You defeat the point you try to make.] ...As for the Gold Standard - WOW! You really don't get it at all! [Here we go. Seatbelts, people.] If you had bothered to watch the entire series of Mike Maloney's "Hidden Secrets of Money", then you would have a much more nuanced understanding of "money", "currency", the history of fiat currencies 100% failure rate (but America is "special" so that won't happen to us), economic cycles, asset classes, and other topics. From there, you would have a better understanding of what expert investors (like Doug Casey, Doug French, Rick Rule, Louis James, Max Kaiser, Jim Willie, Frank Giustra, John Williams, among many others - but no Ayn Rand!) who have a much deeper understanding of wealth cycles and how works as economic theory, as a commodity investment, and as a backstop to currency/monetary policy. Your assertion that the economy crashed in 1971 as a result of the gold standard, is not only devoid of merit, it proves to me that you're simply rehashing what you read on the internet or you heard on John Stewart or whatever else you choose to listen to. For the record, it was the French who started the rush on America's gold (circa 1965), when it occurred to De Gaulle that America's ridiculously low (government mandated) price for gold of $35 per ounce (thank you, FDR!) bore no resemblance to the world-wide market price for gold; and De Gaulle advocated for a return to the gold standard. Since America was willing to give away its gold, then why not take advantage of it? THAT started the world-wide rush on America's gold reserves; De Gaulle knew that America was using a dishonest slight of hand to fund the "Great Society" and the Vietnam War, via deficit spending and dollar devaluation. De Gaulle simply called Johnson/Nixon on it and pulled back the curtain to reveal the "wizard of oz"; and Nixon "blinked", then he closed the gold exchange window permanently, in order to keep America from losing all of our Gold. As a side note, after Nixon ended the gold standard in August 1971, he also issued an executive order (11615) freezing prices and wages for 90 days while the country, and the world, adjusted to the new fiat currency. How did that play out? What was supposed to last for 90 days turned into 3 years, and the price of everything else rose sharply. Farmers couldn't sell their food products for a profit, so they destroyed what was unprofitable and accepted compensation from the government (welfare) to cover their losses. What was the result? Shortages of many staple items and massive price inflation in spite of Nixon's order. Economic stagflation, better known as 1970s America. For more details, see any of the people listed above, or you can check out all of the charts/stats/data that you can handle at www.shadowstats.com (but no Ayn Rand)....Since I've spent way too much time writing my own dissertation, I'll close with this - you're not going to convince me that ANY form of Socialism or Collectivism (whether you call it "democratic socialism" or anything else) is anything more than a road to ruin (see Zimbabwe in 2009, Mexico in 1994, Russia in the 1990s, Argentina in 2013, China in 1949-1980, Germany in 1923, France in the 1700s - thanks to John Law, among other examples.) You have every liberal's passion for justice and fair play (which is commendable), but your arguments are lacking in substance. Likewise, I highly doubt that anything I've written has persuaded you either. So, let's just wait and see how your "democratic socialism" plays out, and we'll see who has the higher standard of living - me and my gold/free market economics, or you and your faith in the government. Since I'm a betting man, care to place a wager on this? I'll give you 5 to 1 odds.... 

Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting 

**

 Facebook: TheHobbesian 

** 

The Brain Frees 
First, as you can see, I did, in fact, write 1907, so it was not an error of any size on my part (quite accurate, actually), and has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the thrust of my argument regarding my ability to keep dates straight. The opening you thought you saw that provided you with an opportunity for yet another ad hominem attack against me was an error on your part. If you believe that I may have gone back and changed the date after you claimed I was wrong and insulted my integrity, you will notice the Facebook tag at the end does not say "Edited." It is still the original post. You may believe I have the ability and technical know-how to hack Facebook code to remove "Edited," but I do not. Based on this rule of judgment you have put forth, it is not my integrity that comes into question. Also, the very first word in your response is actually spelled "kudos." Kodos is a character either from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Conscience of the King" or one of the recurring aliens from Fox cartoon, The Simpsons.

I am fully aware of British economist John Maynard Keynes' economic theory. I don't know why you brought that up, but it's a completely different theory than that of Ayn Rand Paul Libertarianism. Keynesian economics applies to the real world and actually works, based on historical fact. Keynes was adamantly opposed to the gold standard. I will refrain from insulting your integrity even though you spelled 'Keynesian' incorrectly.

After your previous speech about 'maximum prosperity of free markets being free of government regulation,' you are now proposing the free market needs regulation. I am unable to follow this self-contradicting line of thought, therefore, unable to comment.

Then you gave a wonderfully verbose dissertation as to why the gold standard doesn't work due to the ability to manipulate it just as easily as "money" or "currency" or whatever nuanced definition you wish to use to describe the item people utilize in the act of purchasing goods and services. Proving my point. Also, gold prices have been pretty steadily declining for the past three years. 



The government of the United States of America has very little to compare with Zimbabwe in 2009, Mexico in 1994, Russia in the 1990s, Argentina in 2013, China in 1949-1980, Germany in 1923, France in the 1700s - with or without John Law. But hey, what would a political discussion be without a little obfuscation of facts and a straw man feint?

You keep calling me a liberal (as if that's some sort of an insult) and trying to tie the facts I'm presenting to 'emotions' which, for some reason Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians/Tea Partiers always do because they think it somehow diminishes the facts they disagree with. "Oh, you can't listen to what he says, he's being EMOTIONAL." Neither am I a Liberal, nor are the plain facts 'emotion-based.' Nevertheless, facts don't change because you disagree with them.

And, yes you have proved that everything I have said is wrong. All of the easily researchable historical facts are now meaningless because they just can't hold up to your statement, "your arguments are lacking in substance."

I do agree that neither of us will persuade the other. But democratic socialism has been working in the US so far. A fact you may or may not wish to accept. It would work far better if one Party didn't wholly work for the sole benefit of corporations and the other Party wasn't a bunch of spineless cowards that almost never stand up for their beliefs. It has worked when both parties understand the art of compromise. It would work even better with more than two Parties from which to choose. [It would also work much better if stupid people would stop electing stupid politicians.] Regardless, it's no longer the 19th century and the current world economy laughs at the gold standard. And no, no bets. I'd feel guilty taking your money.

Finally, what exactly do you want me to purchase from John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics? I always trust someone when I first must give their corporation money in order to learn their special secret. That's most certainly a highly credible source of information. "Pay me and I'll tell you the most amazing thing that will make your life the most awesomest awesome ever."

Oh, and the auto bail-out worked.


"If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country [out of 193] have tried it?" - Michael Lind



**  **


 
**  ** 

Marty
 TBF, TBF, TBF, your rant about a "personal attack" is little more than the projection of your own insecurities. [?] I'd watch out for that; it clouds your ability to reason and form an intelligent rebuttal. [Like attacking me for getting a date wrong when I didn’t get a date wrong and then ignoring that you were wrong to call me wrong? That kind of reasoned, intelligent rebuttal?] If I held your integrity in so low regard as you claim, I wouldn't waste my time with you in the first place [So, when you said, “And I would not take an economics lesson from a fiction writer any more than I would take it from a sculptor,” you were respecting my integrity? Let’s not pretend the only reason you’re still debating me isn’t because you just want to be the winner.] "...The opening you thought you saw that provided you with an opportunity for yet another ad hominem attack against me was an error on your part. If you believe that I may have gone back and changed the date after you claimed I was wrong and insulted my integrity, you will notice the Facebook tag at the end does not say "Edited." It is still the original post. You may believe I have the ability and technical know-how to hack Facebook code to remove "Edited," but I do not. Based on this rule of judgment you have put forth, it is not my integrity that comes into question. Also, the very first word in your response is actually "kudos." Kodos is a character either from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Conscience of the King" or one of the recurring aliens from The Simpsons..." Really, TBF?!?! Take a pill, and relax. [Sardonic humor is sometimes lost on people. Pretty sure I wasn’t being ‘histrionic.’ And it still doesn’t hide the fact that he was fantasmagorically wrong about what I said. And, if you are going to pull a quote, especially one as long as that, you should probably have a point to make of it. Just copying my tactic of copying your direct quotes is otherwise meaningless and time-wasting. I make pointy pointed points, you fool of a Took!]


 
You ARE a liberal political thinker; but that is NOT directed as a "put-down" as you keep asserting. [Yes, when you said I went on "yet another liberal rant," you meant that as a compliment. I guess it is I who is a fool of a Took.] I'm a liberal when it comes to social/personal liberty issues, and a conservative on financial issues. But, you do have a habit of jumping to conclusions and hurling the same personal critiques at those you do don't agree with. By the way, I thought "Atlas Shrugged" was a good book but a little dated, due to its obvious critique of Communism and the Soviet Union; and the recent movie was poorly directed and acted. That is the full extent of my interest in Ayn Rand. She is no more an influence on my thinking than any documentary I watch on the History Channel. Your assertion that I'm a slavish devotee of Ayn Rand is a perfect example of your habit of leaping to conclusions [Don’t remember accusing him of being a ‘slavish devotee.’ But I’m the one jumping to conclusions, so what do I know.] ...And don't worry about "taking my money" - I can afford it. Besides, you're the one who would be paying me, anyway! And if you can't afford the modest subscription fees of shadow stats, [$175/yr or $89/six months] then I know why you're unwilling to take me up on my bet. [How that makes any sense at all, I’ll never know.] Or you just don't understand the concept of "5 to 1 odds." You're just swallowing the mainstream media's opinions on Gold and the phony "recovery". [Yes, anything you disagree with is the ‘mainstream media’ lying to you. Convenient.] And yes, the auto bailout did "work"...it proved that if you screw up big enough, the government will serve as your financial backstop. That's Capitalism in action! - NOT!!! [Instead of letting thousands of people lose their jobs in the name of pure capitalism, the government temporarily boosted the auto manufacturers with a socialised bailout. Jobs were not only kept, but more were created, the auto companies paid back their loans with interest, and the economy was boosted. Win, win, win, win. In this case, capitalism failed where socialism succeeded. That's how America has always run. This is a problem to you, how?] ...all markets and all people need rules to play by, TBF. [From what I understand, that's the opposite of Libertarianism, Marty.] There is no contradiction in individual liberty, Libertarianism, free market economics and the rule of law. That's what makes a civilization work vs. some tribal nomadism. [You just frigging described “tribal nomadism” as your preferred structure of government. The diametric opposite of civilization. I’m beginning to understand that “cognitive dissonance” is the preferred method of reasoning for Libertarians.] If you don't see that, then you're REALLY lost! [On that, we agree. I don't see that and am lost to your methods.] And yes, facts don't change(assuming that there is agreement on what the "facts" are), [Gahazeefplaba!] its the conclusions that are based on them that often go awry. I'd continue, but I have a business to run, so I'll finish with this thought. You should google "bear market rallies" and figure out how that relates to your Forbes article.

**  **


 
**  **

The Brain Frees 
 Yes, Marty, your personal attacks against me are just me projecting my own insecurities, resulting in unintelligent rebuttals. I'm a liberal. I have no idea what capitalism is. I always jump to conclusions, never responding directly to what you say. Bear market rallies unquestionably explains how gold prices are so much more stable than "moneycurrency" and prove that we should go back to the gold standard. Facts are sometimes not facts. And your Libertarian economic policy theories are in no way influenced by 1950's Ayn Rand fiction.

You win. I'm grateful for your indulging of this lowly self-employed sculptor by listening to his hysterical liberal tirades for so long.

*****     *****     *****

Jeez, that was mentally taxing.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” - Aldous Huxley



There are going to be a few more posts where I’m called a Liberal. Here’s the problem with that. I’m not. I do, however, oppose almost every Republican policy. But because I oppose Republicans, that doesn’t make my default setting “Liberal” or a “Democrat.” It makes your political view myopic.

I’m still a free-thinker.

**  **

I have had a difficult time understanding the Libertarian ideology. All I can figure out is that it is a free-for-all chaos world where Max Rockatansky dwells. I have recently discovered the Facebook page, The Hobbesian. Check it out if Libertarianism confuses you, too. 

Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English political philosopher. You may know him as his most recent incarnation, Calvin's tiger. 

Here is a fine list of Libertarian talking points by the Hobbesian. You may understand this blog post better after reading it. I didn't, but you might.











Maggie the staffie getting a beauty treatment - by Lea Juhl Knudsen





No comments:

Post a Comment