As Promised; A few questions for the "American Left."

[Snide]

Note I said "a few," because last time I said "a couple," but asked three.

So here we go:

Why shouldn't a man, who went through marginal tax rates as high as 91% at times, not be allowed to give 100% of the money the government didn't get to anyone he wants?

Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?

Exactly how is today's "poor" getting "poorer?"

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Snide
Note I said "a few," because last time I said "a couple," but asked three.

So here we go:

Why shouldn't a man, who went through marginal tax rates as high as 91% at times, not be allowed to give 100% of the money the government didn't get to anyone he wants?

Not sure what you're getting at with this question. Maybe I'm not American enough. Is there an example you could give?


Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?
If it were up to me, the mom and pop grocery store would be given subsidies, too. Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most, as this seems to maximise their profit margins. Take a look at this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1170056,00.html) article to see what I mean:

A couple of weeks ago, I went to buy some fruit trees. I travelled to the world's most unprepossessing centre of biodiversity: Langley, on the outskirts of Slough. In the first half of the 20th century, most of London's fruit and vegetables were grown round there. The farms were supplied by specialist nurseries, which ensured that Britain possessed a wider variety of temperate fruit trees than any other nation. Two weeks ago, only one of these nurseries was left. In the 1940s, JC Allgrove's kept a thousand varieties of apple tree. It is still listed in the directories as one of Britain's great growers. But I was among its last customers.

Since the owner died two years ago, the business has been run by a volunteer, Nick Houston. "There are bits of ground here where no one's been for 20 years," he told me. Recently, scrabbling beneath the ivy that now covers the orchards, he found an apple he had never seen before. It was a Baumann's Reinette: the horticultural equivalent of a Fabergé egg. "But I had no idea which bloody tree it had fallen off."


See also how major corporations, by influcing trade policy, have jeopordised the exisitance of some 200 species of corn in South America.

exactly how is today's "poor" getting "poorer?"
This (http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialexclusion/comment/0,11499,631414,00.html) is one illustration of what (apparently) is a world-wide trend.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Snide
Note I said "a few," because last time I said "a couple," but asked three.

So here we go:

Why shouldn't a man, who went through marginal tax rates as high as 91% at times, not be allowed to give 100% of the money the government didn't get to anyone he wants?

I think that the tax rate is now much lower, they can give thier money and there are plenty of loopholes in McCain/Feingold, which I would assume is what you are talking about. They can just purchase lobbyists and former government employees to influence policy. And set up groups like the Cato institute. the only thing they can't do is make large contributions to a single candidate, unless they want to reun thier own campaign.
There are many old fashioned Republicrats that support McCain-Feingold.


Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?

It is Republicans and the consevatives that keep giving away the corporate subsidies to not grow cotton and other commodities, why is this a question for the left?


Exactly how is today's "poor" getting "poorer?"

That is not a comment I would make, the gap between the poor and the middle class is growing a little, what is really growing is the outrageous salraies at the top. I am not even sure I actualy support the living wage movement.

Soory but the left is not responsible for the issues you mentioned.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This (http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialexclusion/comment/0,11499,631414,00.html) is one illustration of what (apparently) is a world-wide trend.

It's only a world-wide trend because the governments of the world are so hooked on the boondoggles to the "poor" they keep redefining the poor as people who have color TVs and refrigerators, something you had to be wealthy to have 50 years ago. See my thread on how rich the "poor" in this country really are.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


It's only a world-wide trend because the governments of the world are so hooked on the boondoggles to the "poor" they keep redefining the poor as people who have color TVs and refrigerators, something you had to be wealthy to have 50 years ago. See my thread on how rich the "poor" in this country really are.

Whatever... :rolleyes:

[Quixote]

It's only a world-wide trend because the governments of the world are so hooked on the boondoggles to the "poor" they keep redefining the poor as people who have color TVs and refrigerators, something you had to be wealthy to have 50 years ago.

Where to begin.

Almost no one, rich or poor, had a color TV in 1954. Successful mass production did not begin until that year.

Many people who were far from wealthy owned refrigerators in 1954.

Very few poor people own refrigerators today. They rent them, usually as part of renting their apartment.

Many poor people own color TVs today, because the price of color TV's, like that of most electronic devices, have risen at a rate much less than the rate of inflation.

I assume by "boondoggles" you are referring to anti-poverty programs. Governments continue to conduct anti-poverty programs to keep the working poor from becoming the non-working poor.

The earned income tax credit, which has been called the government's greatest anti-poverty program, was initially an economic stimulus package. It had been around for 15 years before anyone started calling it a social welfare program. Was it sound economic policy before it was reclassified by the politicians, but a boondoggle after?

The main Bush administration argument for the 2002 and 2003 tax cuts was that money left in the hands of wealthier Americans would translate into more jobs for the poor and middle class. Does that make the tax cuts "boondoggles for the poor" or only semi-boondoggles?

Assuming that governments were "hooked" on anti-poverty programs, it would be silly for them to redefine "poor" in such a way as to increase the number of poor people. That would make it look as if the programs were failing. The temptation would be to redefine "poor" in such a way that the number of poor people would seem to decrease, thus justifying a continuation of the programs.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Quixote

Many poor people own color TVs today, because the price of color TV's, like that of most electronic devices, have risen at a rate much less than the rate of inflation.


Then why does the poor guy down the street from me have a plasma?

Kidding aside, when I think of a poor person, I think of someone in a tinroof shack in rural Tennessee/Virginia. I don't think of the "urban poor" who always have enough money to buy a playstation and Nike sneakers.

There is a real difference between true poverty and a lower income earner who is bad with money. However, in America I am afraid we've lost track of the truely impoverished.

[davefoc]

Snide asked:Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?

This is one of the primary mechanisms that Republicans use to get votes in the rural states. There is nothing consistent with Republican ideology about them except that it helps them get elected and raise money. There is almost nothing good for the nation about these programs either unless you like the idea of squeezing more money out of poor people for their food or squeezing more money out of the taxpayers who are ripped off by these programs.

[The Don]

[/QUOTE]Why shouldn't a man, who went through marginal tax rates as high as 91% at times, not be allowed to give 100% of the money the government didn't get to anyone he wants?Presumably you're talking about inheritance tax. Tax can be levied on income, consumption or assets. In order to raise sufficient tax it has been decided that a mixture of these three is best. If all tax were levied on income then the genuinely wealthy would use tax avoidance schemes to hide the majority of their income. Your working Joe wouldn't be able to do this and so would end up paying a disproportionate amount of tax.

Consumption taxes (sales and "sin" taxes) hit hardest at those who consume the greatest proportion of their income, the poor. Wheras a well off person may only spend 50% of their income (and save the rest), a poor person spends 100% (or even 110%). If consumption tax is only levied on "luxury" goods (caviar, Ferraris, Yachts) this results in a drop in the overall tax take (look at the UK and alcohol taxes) as people either don't buy the items in question or buy them overseas to avoid the tax.

A will is a convenient point to levy asset based taxes because it is the one time all the assets are pulled together in a big ol' pile. If you don't levy tax on inheritance (or gifts) it becomes a way of providing tax-free income.
Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?
Because there is an emotional attachment to farmers and the land. The production of food is seen as key to the survival of the country and anything which threatens this has political resonance.

What would be better is to educate people so that they understand the value in well grown food. If you're into organic or low yield/more taste varieties ot better standards of animal welfare then you should be prepared to pay (substantially) more for that food. What the supermarkets provide is acceptable food grown at the lowest cost. Go to someone who really cares about what they produce and see and taste the difference

Exactly how is today's "poor" getting "poorer?"
Poor is usually defined in terms of income related to average or mean earnings. As living standards rise so do those of the poor.

A new measure of poverty is being introduced in some countries, material poverty. It measures whether people lack the key requirements for an adequate life (food, shelter etc.) rather than basing it on income. However it's done will throw up some anomalies. There may be a rich person who lives in a house without electricity and water because they are eccentric - they would be classed as materially poor. Whatever measure is applied has to be of the broad brush type in order that figures can be produced. Each household in the country cannot be interviewed individually to find out if they are poor.

[iain]

I agree that there is a genuine debate to be had over to what extent relative vs. absolute measures of poverty are appropriate. I'm sure the answer is that sometimes it makes sense to use one, sometimes the other.

In ancient Greece, the richest were around six times wealthier than the poorest citizens (note that this excludes slaves and probably some others too). In the modern world, the richest are many thousands times wealthier than the poorest.

In favour of absolute measures, we can say that the life someone lives may be as good now as it was 100 years ago if they have, in absolute terms, the same level of wealth (having accounted for inflation etc.)

In favour of relative measures, we can say that if we are seeking to have the sum resources of the world distributed fairly, whether by the free market or by more interventionist policies, relative measures give a better guide to this. Also, our natural perception of our own wealth, status etc. is far more closely bound to the relative than the absolute view; so whatever you tell them , people will feel poor or low status if they are relatively poor or low status, whatever the figures might say their absolute wealth is compared to some point in the past. These feelings are important - they are closely related to what makes us happy, content and fulfilled in our lives.

[Quasi]

As for the inheritance tax? Another burden on the middle class as the wealthy all shield their money using highly paid tax lawyers. The money is taxed, taxed, then taxed again and again, finally you die, and they tax it all one last time. The estate tax needs to go, the government does not need more money, but better money managemtent. Ever hear of the Pritzker family? They own several lage corporations (Royal Carribean, etc.,) and have a special law made for them which barrs the IRS from showing evidence in court they have secret offshore bank accounts where they hide their billions. Inheritance taxes? When their godfather died, he only reported something like 10,000 USD. He was worth billions. Meanwhile my grandmother passes away, and the f!ng government gets 20%? How is that fair? She paid taxes her whole life, and for decades on the same property.
I agree with the farming bit, no subsidies except to manage the land better for some price control, i.e. pay farmers not to plant so prices do not plummet. I agree if you want specially grown foods, go for it, but organic farmers and distributors should not be allowed to claim they are healthier or more environmentally friendly, because they are not. I enjoy gourmet foods, but I wince when someone tries to get me to pay a lot for "biodynamic" wine grown with astrology. Give me a break.
As for poor, it is clear jobs and money are leaving the US, only 25,000 jobs were reported when Bush claimed 125,000. Also, the replacement jobs are crap. The US needs to stop the economic hemmoraging and get people back to good, well paying jobs. The problem with the wealthiest Americans is that they are not really Americans but citizens of the world, investing where they please. If you think that money is staying in the US, think again.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Quasi
The US needs to stop the economic hemmoraging and get people back to good, well paying jobs. The problem with the wealthiest Americans is that they are not really Americans but citizens of the world, investing where they please. If you think that money is staying in the US, think again.
Economic isolationism does not work.

If jobs are brought back to the U.S. prices for locally produced goods will rise. Imported goods will be cheaper nad hence more popular and so the jobs will still be exported but instead of the producer's head office being in the U.S. it's overseas - so you lose the management jobs too.

The solution ? try imposing trade sanctions. Good produced locally either get a government subsidy or a tax is placed on incoming goods to make them price uncompetitive against locally produced goods. Trouble is that if you do this, inflation goes up and also the other countries impose reciprocal sanctions and U.S. manufacturers cannot export.

It's a fact of life that commodity manufacturing (items with little or no intellecual property content) will tend to move to countries with the lowest labor costs. The key is to have high added value manufacturing (which is easier said than done) for which you need a highly skilled workforce. You probably also need better quality management. Why is it that BMW, Toyota and Honda can produce cars in the U.S. at a profit but G.M and Ford cannot ?

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Don
A will is a convenient point to levy asset based taxes because it is the one time all the assets are pulled together in a big ol' pile. If you don't levy tax on inheritance (or gifts) it becomes a way of providing tax-free income.

[/QUOTE]


What is wrong with that?

[The Don]

A will is a convenient point to levy asset based taxes because it is the one time all the assets are pulled together in a big ol' pile. If you don't levy tax on inheritance (or gifts) it becomes a way of providing tax-free income.
What is wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing at all. Again my argument is based upon an initial assumption (with which many people disagree) that the government needs to gather a certain amount of tax revenue and that the amount required to be paid by each person should be "fair".

As I mentioned in that earlier post, it seems that a mixture of income, consumption and asset based taxes has been settled on as a way of "fairly" distributing the tax burden. Of course each group is looking after its own interests. People with large income bu few assets prefer asset based tax regimes. People with low income but large assets (seniors) favour an income based regime. As someone who doesn't happen to like or eat A1 steak sauce I believe that your tax bill should be based solely on the amount of A1 you consume.

If someone is getting income on which they are not paying tax, they are shifting the tax burden to the other members of society. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of sefishness, it's a hard world out there. If the tax isn't raised in this way, and the amount of tax revenue required remains the same (or as is usually the case rises) then this money will have to be raised by other means, raising other taxes or increasing the national debt.

[iain]

A will is a convenient point to levy asset based taxes because it is the one time all the assets are pulled together in a big ol' pile. If you don't levy tax on inheritance (or gifts) it becomes a way of providing tax-free income.
Originally posted by Ed
What is wrong with that?

Well, assuming the government is trying to get a certain amount of money, it has to come from somewhere. If not from inheritance taxes then the burden will fall on people without rich, dead ancestors. I doubt most people would think it fair that, on top of all the other benefits someone gets simply by being born into a wealthy family, they get to avoid paying tax too, with the working guys paying more as a result.

Of course, you could argue that the tax burden as a whole should be reduced, but that's a different debate.

Edited to avoid falsly attributing to Ed comments he didn't make

[WildCat]

Many people who were far from wealthy owned refrigerators in 1954.

Very few poor people own refrigerators today. They rent them, usually as part of renting their apartment.
Maybe it's different in Houston, but it's quite the opposite here in Chicago.

My apartments have always come w/ a refrigerator and stove, but in the low-rent parts of town the tenant usually has to supply their own.

This is because, from the landlords experience, if the apartment had a refrigereator and stove when the tenant moved in it often won't after they move out.

Which is why those parts of town have an abundance of used stove and refrigerator stores.

I once worked for a building owner who complained about having to supply a furnace for his tenants!

[Quasi]

Originally posted by iain

Well, assuming the government is trying to get a certain amount of money, it has to come from somewhere. If not from inheritance taxes then the burden will fall on people without rich, dead ancestors. I doubt most people would think it fair that, on top of all the other benefits someone gets simply by being born into a wealthy family, they get to avoid paying tax too, with the working guys paying more as a result.

Of course, you could argue that the tax burden as a whole should be reduced, but that's a different debate.

Edited to avoid falsly attributing to Ed comments he didn't make

The ultra wealthy are already ineriting the wealth without taxes, I just want it to be fair, across the board.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Quasi


The ultra wealthy are already ineriting the wealth without taxes, I just want it to be fair, across the board.
So do we raise income tax or sales tax to make up the difference ?

Or do we try (ha ha ha!) to extract the approporiate amount of tax from the ultra-rich ?

[iain]

Originally posted by Quasi
The ultra wealthy are already ineriting the wealth without taxes, I just want it to be fair, across the board. OK, I can see that. But removing the tax just makes it unfair in a different way. Instead of the top 1% avoiding tax and the additional burden being spread across the remaining 99%, the top 30% will avoid tax, with the additional burden being spread across the remaining 70%.

Agreed the current situation isn't perfect by a very long way; but I think the alternative is worse and even more regressive.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


It's only a world-wide trend because the governments of the world are so hooked on the boondoggles to the "poor" they keep redefining the poor as people who have color TVs and refrigerators, something you had to be wealthy to have 50 years ago. See my thread on how rich the "poor" in this country really are.

Indeed. America's poor today have a much better standard of living than they once did.

For Christmas, our company gave gifts on selected families' "wish lists." These were families whose parents were unemployed.

The wishes on the kids' lists were interesting...they wanted DVD's and Playstation games, among the noteworthy items.

So the gap may be widening, but if everyone is going up, what's the problem?

[Snide]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Not sure what you're getting at with this question. Maybe I'm not American enough. Is there an example you could give?

It's hypothetical, but the highest marginal income rate was once 91% in America, IIRC. I imagine there are plenty of wealthy people today who, to put it bluntly, will be dying soon. They are old enough to have paid this marginal rate at one time.


If it were up to me, the mom and pop grocery store would be given subsidies, too.

Admittedly, this question could be a strawmen to some. But I did the same in the "questions for the right" thread.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Quasi
As for the inheritance tax? Another burden on the middle class as the wealthy all shield their money using highly paid tax lawyers. The money is taxed, taxed, then taxed again and again, finally you die, and they tax it all one last time. The estate tax needs to go...

Burden on the middle class? Are you aware the first $1M is tax-free?

Funny thing is, Republicans want to get rid of the estate tax. The Democrats offered to raise the exemption to $10M. The republicans said no. The Dems offered to raise the exemption to $100M. Again the Republicans said no. So who are the republicans trying to protect here. Yep, you got it. The fabulously wealthy. Even billionaires should not have to pay taxes on their inheirited wealth according to the GOP.

Lurker

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If it were up to me, the mom and pop grocery store would be given subsidies, too. Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most, as this seems to maximise their profit margins. Take a look at this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1170056,00.html) article to see what I mean:



See also how major corporations, by influcing trade policy, have jeopordised the exisitance of some 200 species of corn in South America.


I am trying to figure out why we need 200 varieties of corn.

South America. Hmmmm. Maybe we are trading off 200 varieties of corn for 200 varieties of coffee.

Coffee takes up a whole aisle, and it is more than "a choice of one or two products." Same with the toothpaste aisle. There is a ridiculous variety of toothpastes. And cigarettes and toilet paper and plastic wrap and laundry detergent and cleanser and bologna and cheese and...

From my visits around the world in the Navy, I can tell you with all confidence that Americans have more choices than anywhere else on earth.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Luke T.

From my visits around the world in the Navy, I can tell you with all confidence that Americans have more choices than anywhere else on earth.
Except in supermarkets where in my experience in Europe you get a much wider choice of Breads, Cheeses and produce though less of a choice of canned or packaged goods.

A French supermarket will typically have over 50 types of cheese at the Deli.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don

Except in supermarkets where in my experience in Europe you get a much wider choice of Breads, Cheeses and produce though less of a choice of canned or packaged goods.



There are stores in america where people can go to get that kind of selection of breads, cheeses and meats.


Personally, when I went to a Tesco in England, I was shocked at how limited the selection really was.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Don

Except in supermarkets where in my experience in Europe you get a much wider choice of Breads, Cheeses and produce though less of a choice of canned or packaged goods.

A French supermarket will typically have over 50 types of cheese at the Deli.

That wasn't my experience with a "typical" french supermarket. In fact, "supermarket" is relative. None of them compared in size and scope with an American supermarket.

[The Don]

Next time you're in France try one of the large Leclerc supermarkets or a Hyper-U. Even by American standards they're a decent size.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
Personally, when I went to a Tesco in England, I was shocked at how limited the selection really was. Try Dutch supermarkets sometime. Choice? What choice?

Having said that, my wife does a lot of cooking that requires more exotic ingredients and we've very rarely had a problem picking up what we need from the main UK supermarkets. Where there is less choice, specialist shops make up for it (I love cheese shops).

Edited to add : From what's been said, I wouldn't like US supermarkets at all. I already think that the UK ones are too big and offer too many choices. I don't need to choose between 20 brands of essentially identical product and it drives me nuts that my wife takes so long when she has to choose. I think the UK has pretty the same variety of products, but fewer brands of each individual product. Works for me.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony



There are stores in america where people can go to get that kind of selection of breads, cheeses and meats.


Personally, when I went to a Tesco in England, I was shocked at how limited the selection really was.
Yep, we have them too.

I was likewise shocked last year going around the South Eastern U.S.A. at how limited the choice was in supermarkets. Maybe I was just unlucky with my choices (Mostly Food Lion as I recall)

[The Don]

Originally posted by iain
Try Dutch supermarkets sometime. Choice? What choice?

Given that the Dutch allegedly love waccy baccy I expect they just run into the supermarket and grab anything to satisfy the munchies.

In fact I wouldn't be suprised at all to find that Dutch supermarkets only stock biscuits and crisps :D

[Luke T.]

We have plenty of specialist shops as well. This goes back to the origin of the discussion about mom and pop operations being put out of business by large corporations that only give you one or two choices. Neither part of the argument is true.

Don, I meant no disrespect toward European supermarkets. :)

[iain]

Originally posted by The Don
In fact I wouldn't be suprised at all to find that Dutch supermarkets only stock biscuits and crisps :D Worryingly close to the truth :(

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don

(Mostly Food Lion as I recall)

yeah Food Lion is one of the smaller end stores (it is in Houston atleast)

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
Try Dutch supermarkets sometime. Choice? What choice?


I went to one supermarket when I was in Amsterdam (forgot the name, but I can tell you where it is), it offered a pretty good variety of goods.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony


I went to one supermarket when I was in Amsterdam (forgot the name, but I can tell you where it is), it offered a pretty good variety of goods. There are a few big ones, especially in Amsterdam, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

To be fair to the Dutch, there are a lot of good-sized supermarkets which, whilst much smaller than the big ones in France and UK, probably sell most things the Dutch want to have - but then the Dutch have some very odd habits. Raw herring, anyone?

A friend of mine who lived in The Hague actually planned to drive down, right through Belgium, to get to a decent sized Hypermarche in Lille to buy all his Christmas booze.

[VicDaring]

I've gotten a little snarky with Rik, Luke, RandFan, and others lately, so I guess I should be ready to step up to the plate on this one, huh.

Originally posted by Snide

Why shouldn't a man, who went through marginal tax rates as high as 91% at times, not be allowed to give 100% of the money the government didn't get to anyone he wants?

I have a hard time finding evil, repressive socialism in already wealthy heirs paying tax on income they did nothing to earn. And that's all we're talking about here, is the biggest, richest estates.


Why should the family farmer not have to deal with corporate competition, without subsidies, in the same manner the mom and pop grocery store had to?

I can't even pretend to know enough about farm subsidy issues to offer useful commentary. And I was raised in dairy farm country. I do know that the intention behind subsidies, which is to address rural poverty, was a noble one, but may have gotten lost in the beuracracy somewhere along the line.

For certain crops, like grains that might be used for alternative fuels, I think subsidies make good sense. There might not be any great profit in those crops now, but they could turn out to be very important down the road. Paying someone to sustain them in the meantime seems to make good sense.

I'd also be okay with subsidies for farmers using expirimental methods, latest GE crops, stuff like that.


Exactly how is today's "poor" getting "poorer?"

The Gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing larger and larger (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/02-11-03.html).

A new report by the Federal Reserve reveals that the "wealth gap" in America may be the largest ever. According to the report, the difference in median net wealth between the wealthiest 10 percent of families and the poorest 20 percent jumped by nearly 70 percent between 1998 and 2001. The gap between whites and minorities grew by 21 percent.

[Tony]

Originally posted by VicDaring

The Gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing larger and larger (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/02-11-03.html).

A new report by the Federal Reserve reveals that the "wealth gap" in America may be the largest ever. According to the report, the difference in median net wealth between the wealthiest 10 percent of families and the poorest 20 percent jumped by nearly 70 percent between 1998 and 2001. The gap between whites and minorities grew by 21 percent.

That doesnt answer the question. He said "How is the poor getting poorer?", not, "How is the rich getting richer?".

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Tony


That doesnt answer the question. He said "How is the poor getting poorer?", not, "How is the rich getting richer?".

Sorry. I can't take responsibility for a poorly worded question.

[Tony]

Originally posted by VicDaring


Sorry. I can't take responsibility for a poorly worded question.

Dodge noted.

[VicDaring]

Let's leave it up to Snide to decide whether I've dodged his question.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
That doesnt answer the question. He said "How is the poor getting poorer?", not, "How is the rich getting richer?". See my comments above on why it is sometimes appropriate to use relative, rather than absolute, measures of wealth and poverty.

[davefoc]

VicDaring said:
I do know that the intention behind subsidies, which is to address rural poverty, was a noble one, but may have gotten lost in the beuracracy somewhere along the line.

I think this is more like the cover story, for what amounts to a massive transfer of wealth by the government from the less well off to the more well off.

If one had the goal of reducing rural poverty one could give money to poor people that don't own land as well as those that do. Of course that wasn't done. This is a program designed to increase your wealth depending on how much land you have. More land equals more subsidies. Unfortunately the subsidies are double barrelled. On one hand the government takes billions from the American taxpayer to give to landowners and then it takes billions more from everybody by raising the cost of food.

Not only is the US damaged by this program, but the world is damaged. In order to dispose of the excess food production generated by the program, the government in the past has shipped the food to foreign countries where it undermines the local food production industries.

LukeT said:

I am trying to figure out why we need 200 varieties of corn.

The argument for greater diversity in our food crops is that as the gene pool diversity is reduced in crops the crops become more subject to massive damage from the sudden rise of a crop pathogen that has no resistance in gene pool of the widely propagated crops.

This was a contributing factor of the Irish potato famine and was the factor in the massive dieoff of european honeybees in the US in the 90's.

If one was trying to get something for the billions in agricultural subsidies that the US provides to US landowners one of the things one might do is use it to encourage crop diversity so as to make the US more resistant to famine. This is not done as far as I know. And I wouldn't expect it to be done because the principal purpose of the program is to get Republicans votes and money and actually getting something of value beyond that for the program is not likely.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
See my comments above on why it is sometimes appropriate to use relative, rather than absolute, measures of wealth and poverty.


I just did. It seems that your whole premise rests on this idea:

we can say that if we are seeking to have the sum resources of the world distributed fairly


Who says we are seeking that?

And why is it unfair for people to keep their wealth they have earned?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I am trying to figure out why we need 200 varieties of corn.

South America. Hmmmm. Maybe we are trading off 200 varieties of corn for 200 varieties of coffee.

Coffee takes up a whole aisle, and it is more than "a choice of one or two products." Same with the toothpaste aisle. There is a ridiculous variety of toothpastes. And cigarettes and toilet paper and plastic wrap and laundry detergent and cleanser and bologna and cheese and...

From my visits around the world in the Navy, I can tell you with all confidence that Americans have more choices than anywhere else on earth.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Look ma! A supreficial Yank! Can I keep him, huh?

[Snide]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Let's leave it up to Snide to decide whether I've dodged his question.

I chose my words carefully. I wasn't refering to the gap. I don't deny the rich get richer....that's a good thing, as long as everyone's getting richer. So I specifically chose to only address whether the poor are indeed getting poorer.

I wouldn't say you've dodged it...you're just looking for clarification.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I am trying to figure out why we need 200 varieties of corn.

South America. Hmmmm. Maybe we are trading off 200 varieties of corn for 200 varieties of coffee.

Coffee takes up a whole aisle, and it is more than "a choice of one or two products." Same with the toothpaste aisle. There is a ridiculous variety of toothpastes. And cigarettes and toilet paper and plastic wrap and laundry detergent and cleanser and bologna and cheese and...

From my visits around the world in the Navy, I can tell you with all confidence that Americans have more choices than anywhere else on earth.

Oh, next time you're in a toothpaste aisle, check the ingredients. Tell me how radically different one type of toothpaste is from the other.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
Who says we are seeking that?

And why is it unfair for people to keep their wealth they have earned? Tony,
By fairly, I don't neccesarily mean equally or according to need. I'm quite happy with a definition of "fair" which means "people get what they've earned" in this context. I think my comments still hold with that definition.

I think it is entirely fair for people to keep the wealth they've earned. In my taxation thread I'm asking whether people have really earned everything they are paid in a modern society where so much of the wealth generation depends on state-funded infrastructure.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, next time you're in a toothpaste aisle, check the ingredients. Tell me how radically different one type of toothpaste is from the other.

What's that have to do with " Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most" ?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by VicDaring
I have a hard time finding evil, repressive socialism in already wealthy heirs paying tax on income they did nothing to earn.

The socialist part is that the people who get the money taken from the heirs did nothing to earn it either.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What's that have to do with " Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most" ?

Check the toothpaste ingredients for your answer.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Snide


I chose my words carefully. I wasn't refering to the gap. I don't deny the rich get richer....that's a good thing, as long as everyone's getting richer. So I specifically chose to only address whether the poor are indeed getting poorer.

I wouldn't say you've dodged it...you're just looking for clarification.

Edited to actually add my response:

Aha! So if we did a comparison between poor "then" (someone could pick a then) and now, and adjusted for inflation, "real dollars," that sort of thing...

Might be interesting. Might also take someone much smarter than me (although I will poke around and see if I can dig anything up).

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The socialist part is that the people who get the money taken from the heirs did nothing to earn it either.

You could say that about pretty much any tax.

Come to think of it, you may, in fact, say just that.

Which then brings us back to an ideological difference.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by VicDaring


You could say that about pretty much any tax.

Come to think of it, you may, in fact, say just that.

Which then brings us back to an ideological difference.

Yep.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Check the toothpaste ingredients for your answer.

What are the ingredients for "corn" ? :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by iain
See my comments above on why it is sometimes appropriate to use relative, rather than absolute, measures of wealth and poverty.

And see my entire thread debunking it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Check the toothpaste ingredients for your answer.

Well, let's see...there's baking soda toothpaste, mint toothpaste, toothpaste with breath freshener, toothpaste with whitening agents, toothpase with tartar control, and toothpastes with all sorts of combinations of the above. And that's just from memory.

Are you really trying to say there's only one or two types of toothpaste?

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, let's see...there's baking soda toothpaste, mint toothpaste, toothpaste with breath freshener, toothpaste with whitening agents, toothpase with tartar control, and toothpastes with all sorts of combinations of the above. And that's just from memory.

Are you really trying to say there's only one or two types of toothpaste?

I think he means one brand isn't much different from the other. That would include one brand's baking soda variety v. another brand's baking soda variety, one brand's "minty fresh" v. etc. etc.

Coke, Pepsi, Royal Crown....are they really that different, or has the marketing allowed us to believe so?

Sorry, don't mean to de-rail...

[Phrost]

About as big of a difference as the Socialist Europeans seek in their wines, yes.

In a pure Capitalist state, the superior product will always sell best, with 'superior' being defined as whatever the consumer seeks.

Following this, it's the job of the government not to subsidize inadequacy, but to ensure fair competition.

Pretty simple, unless you're of the mind that your neighbor owes you something simply because you draw breath.

[Number Six]

It's amazing how many different types of toothpaste there are. Maybe they're all basically the same underneath all the glitz but when you go down the toothpaste I'll there are sure plenty of different kinds of boxes.

I wouldn't doubt that they're basically all the same behind the glitz but I don't think that's a bad thing and in fact I think it's a result of the fact that toothpaste is just a functional thing and they have to add the glitz to outdo one another. Toothpaste is for cleaning your teeth and there are probably only a few different "best" ways to do that. All the different colors are just to get you to buy Brand X instead of Brand Y even though they're both equally effective.

Items that are a matter of personal taste are another matter. Neither Coke nor Pepsi is "better," rather it's just a matter of taste and in those kinds of things having more choices matters. In my local "big chain" grocery store there are literally dozens of different soft drink choices (and dozens of different choices for everything else).

Maybe there is some way for big companies beating out mom and pop-type places to result in fewer choices in the long run but in the short run I think the opposite has happened. The number of choices is absurdly high. If you took all the choices of a particular item in all the mom and pop stores I've ever been to and combined them I doubt there'd be as many distinct choices as at my local "big chain" grocery store on any given. In fact I often find myself standing in the aisles looking at ten different kinds of the same thing, reading labels, figuring cost per pound, etc, and I catch myself and say "Geez, just pick one, whatever difference there is between them isn't worth ten minutes out of my life figuring it all out."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
I think he means one brand isn't much different from the other. That would include one brand's baking soda variety v. another brand's baking soda variety, one brand's "minty fresh" v. etc. etc.

Well, duh! If there's a demand for a product, aren't there going to be different brands competing for that market? That's NOT the same thing as his claim that "Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most"?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, let's see...there's baking soda toothpaste, mint toothpaste, toothpaste with breath freshener, toothpaste with whitening agents, toothpase with tartar control, and toothpastes with all sorts of combinations of the above. And that's just from memory.

Are you really trying to say there's only one or two types of toothpaste?

I'm not going to answer you, because if there's anything that creeps me out more than a monomanical lunatic, it's a beardy monomanical lunatic.

:shudders:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, duh! If there's a demand for a product, aren't there going to be different brands competing for that market? That's NOT the same thing as his claim that "Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most"?

Shanek;
the situation has changed recently although i agree that the free market will create diversity in the long run(Tom's of maine being a good example in toothpaste), what i have noticed is the effect of merchandising in super markets. My favorite which is not a discount store but one of the cheaper ones has shown an amazing decrease in diversity of brands. It seems that there is some sort of compettion for shelf space and that the major players can squeeze out the smaller ones.
This is of course to be expected in a free market. Ten years ago there were all sorts of botique brands, some of which have survived. Right now there is a squeeze out going on, ten years from now I am sure there will be new botique brands again.
I just notice that at least in the supermarket there seems to be a decrease in diversity, and some store managers say this is due to the purchase of shelf space by the merchadizers.

[Mr Manifesto]

Fair Trade vs Free Trade (http://www.caa.org.au/publications/connections/september_2002/fairtradevsfreetrade.html)

I would like to make it clear I'm not responding to shanek. Too monomanical, too beardy. I'm responding to others who may share his concerns.

[iain]

Originally posted by shanek


And see my entire thread debunking it. We're all entitled to our opinions (and I have a vague recollection we once agreed on something - other than Linux - but it's probably just my imagination. One day maybe... :) )

Edited to add : Relative and absolute measures of poverty are just different statistical methods. There's no right or wrong; just methods which are more or less appropriate to use for a given purpose. I'm sure we would disagree on which was appropriate in many cases; but that's a disagreement over methodology. Neither gives a "right" or "wrong" answer, merely an answer that says "if I use method X to evaluate this data, I get answer Y". What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Fair Trade vs Free Trade (http://www.caa.org.au/publications/connections/september_2002/fairtradevsfreetrade.html)

I would like to make it clear I'm not responding to shanek. Too monomanical, too beardy. I'm responding to others who may share his concerns.

Who said life was supposed to be fair?

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, duh! If there's a demand for a product, aren't there going to be different brands competing for that market? That's NOT the same thing as his claim that "Major corporations don't like diversity: they'd prefer that you only have a choice one or two products at most"?

Oh, that's the claim you were refuting! Why didn't you say so? :)

I was just addressing your response. It seemed you were refuting the notion that toothpastes are not really different from one brand to another, using baking soda as an example. I was just pointing out that if you compare one brand's baking soda variety, for example, v. another's, they're still quite homogenous then.

Now, as to whether major corporations do or do not like diversity, of course the truth is, they don't care. They'll put to market whatever we'll buy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I'm not going to answer you, because if there's anything that creeps me out more than a monomanical lunatic, it's a beardy monomanical lunatic.



Unless they are muslims or tyrants, then you love them. Just look at your avatar.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Unless they are muslims or tyrants, then you love them. Just look at your avatar.

My mother warned me the joke would be too subtle for Americans, especially Texans. I should've listened, but do I ever listen? Nooooooo...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
[B]
My mother warned me the joke would be too subtle for Americans, especially Texans. B]

Your mom must almost be as racist as you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by iain
Edited to add : Relative and absolute measures of poverty are just different statistical methods. There's no right or wrong; just methods which are more or less appropriate to use for a given purpose.

Well, the fact is that if you call people "poor" what comes up in one's mind is generally people having to go without certain necessities. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to use that measurement in this discussion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
Now, as to whether major corporations do or do not like diversity, of course the truth is, they don't care. They'll put to market whatever we'll buy.

Precisely. And if people didn't want or couldn't handle a diverse range of choices, they wouldn't give that to us. That's why I think that all of these claims that people are too stupid to choose between more than a couple of options is so bogus it staggers the mind.

[Quixote]

Originally posted by Tony


Your mom must almost be as racist as you.

Tony, perhaps you are not a native Texan. As one, I can assure you that "Texan" is not a race.

Mr Manifesto, isn't that avatar a still from TV Funhouse: Saddam and Osama?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Quixote


Tony, perhaps you are not a native Texan. As one, I can assure you that "Texan" is not a race.

Mr Manifesto, isn't that avatar a still from TV Funhouse: Saddam and Osama?

Nope, it's from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon which, IIRC, was pointing out the absurdity of an OBL/Saddam connection.

[Mr Manifesto]

Wrong freakin' thread.