They say the cost will only be passed on to the consumer, but this concept is misleading.
Whenever a BC liberal has brought up the matter of corporate taxes, the BC conservatives almost always point out that corporate taxes do no good at all because the corporations will only pass the cost on to the consumer. Now if taken at face value, that is surely a sensible statement. After all, don't all goods and services have costs that comprise part of the retail price to the consumer? Of course they do! It is for this reason that I didn't argue more strongly for corporate taxes.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Clavos
that's the problem. where are your solutions?
What a phony argument!!
"Don't complain unless you know how to fix the problem; unless you have a solution."
Incredible...
As I said upthread, if I had the solution, I'd be selling it to the government as we speak; but my not having it doesn't preclude me from complaining about the problem, that's stupid.
77 - troll
Clavos - the structural requirement for conspiratorial poverty can be easily hypothesized:
The natural rate is determined by the rate at which jobs are simultaneously created and destroyed, the rate of turnover in particular jobs, and how quickly unemployed workers are matched with vacant positions. Those factors in turn depend on the characteristics of jobs and of workers and on the efficiency of the labor market’s matching process. (pdf)
...the existence of the truly poor impacts the character of the workers with the reality and motivation of the ever present abyss - it's their job
78 - zingzing
"What a phony argument!!"
what a cop-out!!
"but my not having it doesn't preclude me from complaining about the problem, that's stupid."
you can complain, sure. but you have nothing positive to contribute to a solution.
at least you realize that.
your complaints are meaningless and futile until there is some other, more worthy option. you can continue to waste your time bitching and whining, or you can go about trying to find the solution to the problem. otherwise, you're just another non-productive member of society. if only you'd try...
but, as we've discovered upthread, you complain that the gov't does nothing but give the poor money, that it doesn't provide them with the opportunities to better their lot. but that's just ignorance. if you honestly looked at gov't programs for the poor, maybe you could begin to look at ways to better those programs. but you don't even know what's out there. so why complain from a position of ignorance?
79 - Clavos
you say "dismantle the welfare state!"
No, I didn't. Not that, or anything remotely like it. I merely said that paying them isn't accomplishing much in terms of liberating them from their poverty. On the contrary, even paid, they still live in abject conditions, so stopping their payments without providing for them to be able to make their own way will just create more problems.
80 - Clavos
Sorry, zing, but you haven't the power to muzzle me. I will continue to complain until something is done; my right to do so is enshrined in the bill of rights.
If that makes me, in your eyes, a "non-productive member of society," OK. Your opinion of me is not germane to my complaint.
81 - Clavos
troll #77,
That is VERY interesting, especially the pdf quote. Would like to read some more of that. Steer me?
How's life under the bridge?
82 - Clavos
Sorry, troll, didn't see the link until just now...
83 - zingzing
"Sorry, zing, but you haven't the power to muzzle me."
i didn't. i said you can complain. i just said it was ineffectual. don't go overstating your case again.
"my right to do so is enshrined in the bill of rights."
oh, please, clavos. get off the high horse. if you read what i actually wrote instead of something completely different, you'd not have gotten to the point where you thought you needed to say that. i know we're all guilty of such things, but you really don't need to tell me about the bill of rights.
"I merely said that paying them isn't accomplishing much in terms of liberating them from their poverty. On the contrary, even paid, they still live in abject conditions, so stopping their payments without providing for them to be able to make their own way will just create more problems."
what's the problem here then? the gov't is trying to provide them the opportunity to "make their own way." there's a safety net and a leg up. yes, these things could be improved, we can all agree on that. if they were perfect, they wouldn't be necessary at all. but they're not, because this isn't a perfect world. sounds to me like we're more in agreement than not. where's the disconnect?
84 - Clavos
what's the problem here then?
One more time:
The continued and never-ending existence of a permanent underclass in the midst of history's richest empire (well, not richest any more, but it once was), that's the problem.
85 - Clavos
Oh, and zing:
Take a closer look at troll's #77...
86 - troll
here in New Mexico (it's like a whole other country) when I trained to become a farrier the State provided poor trainees with the tools of the trade enabling them to take their certificates and actually make a living
pending the total dismemberment of the welfare state programs like that seem to be a good idea to me
87 - Clavos
pending the total dismemberment of the welfare state programs like that seem to be a good idea to me
Bears repeating.
88 - zingzing
"Take a closer look at troll's #77..."
any part in particular? the pdf is 16 pages long, so maybe you could point to something specific...
as for troll's 86, there are many programs just like that everywhere.
"[the problem is] The continued and never-ending existence of a permanent underclass in the midst of history's richest empire (well, not richest any more, but it once was), that's the problem."
as in anywhere else, there will always be a top, middle and bottom. but our bottom doesn't include all that many with flies on their eyes and bellies distended by malnutrition. i'm not saying our poor are well-off, but look outside of the united states and see what the possibilities are where there is no social safety net.
89 - Clavos
I know what those possibilities are, I'm from Mexico, remember? But this is the USA it resonates far more here than in places like Mexico, which, corruption aside, hasn't the wherewithal to do much about their poverty..
BTW, in that last post you're starting to sound like a blindly patriotic conservative.
90 - zingzing
by employing relativism and saying that our social programs are doing some amount of good?
anyway, this makes you start to sound like a good old progressive: "stopping their payments without providing for them to be able to make their own way will just create more problems."
one day, clavos, when all is right in the world, we will agree on everything.
91 - troll
as for troll's 86, there are many programs just like that everywhere.
not enough apparently...and obviously so internationally
zingzing - you accuse Clavos of having no solutions despite his already having proposed the only positive one - getting training and the means of production into the hands of the poor - way back when in the conversation
92 - zingzing
"not enough apparently...and obviously so internationally"
well, that would take money. and money would mean taxes.
"you accuse Clavos of having no solutions despite his already having proposed the only positive one - getting training and the means of production into the hands of the poor - way back when in the conversation"
he also contested that we aren't doing that at all. but we are, as you and i have pointed out, and to which he conceded. so does he like the status quo? he'll say he wants better and more efficient training programs. ok, so how do you do that? what exactly needs to change in the programs we have now? which ones should be cut and why? are you willing to fund new initiatives?
also, the way you put that--"getting training and the means of production into the hands of the poor"--sounds really, really socialist if you view it in a certain light. and since everything is socialist these day, that's any sort of light.
either way, "getting training... into the hands of the poor" is happening right now, if not in sufficient numbers to lessen poverty. but we can keep trying. if clavos' suggested solution is exactly what is happening, even though we aren't spending enough on the programs, how is that a new solution? and, damn it, where's the money coming from?
93 - troll
and, damn it, where's the money coming from?
...well I suggest a massive decentralized expropriation - but that's just me
94 - zingzing
feudalism? (or some variant thereof, i guess...)
what exactly does that phrase mean?
95 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
(while waiting for the ferry) Do you know what's wrong with not offering a solution of your own? If we get rid of welfare, etc. and have nothing to replace it with, then you're likely to wind up with something worse than what you just got rid of. That's why I don't believe in condemning a thing unless I can think of a better way - IMO to do aught else is intellectual neglect.
96 - troll
...feudalism? ah the good old medieval days when control of a bridge meant something - but alas we can never go home again
on expropriation - see Kropotkin's chapter IV entitled 'expropriation' in linked work
97 - zingzing
i am kindless. or whatever word that would be. (that's pretty cool that it's free though... maybe there's a copy at project gutenberg... nope...)
maybe you could just explain it?
98 - troll
zingzing - get the free pc kindle application
much easier from my perspective for you to review the now ancient traditional anarchist explication - then we can argue practicality and specifics
99 - zingzing
i am pc-less.
100 - zingzing
and before you get there, my mac operating system is too old (need 10.5 or above, i'm sitting on 10.4... had the opportunity to upgrade for free, but i didn't... stupidly...).
101 - troll
...you're a mac person?
no wonder we disagree about everything
there's a 'full view' copy in google books
102 - zingzing
"no wonder we disagree about everything"
mac's music programs are cheaper and more intuitive. also, when i did have a pc, i couldn't for the life of me find a crack for protools. besides, i've got a firm handle on the parts of logic (the music software, before you get started) i need, and i can figure my way around just about any problem within logic (please don't start) that i come across.
so that's why i'm a mac person. it's all about logic... (please, no...)
also, the amount of music downloading that i do would be incredibly dangerous on a pc. long live mac!
(and i looked up the version on google books... it looks like the left side of the page is cut off. very annoying. the first word of each line is gone. if you change it to view two pages at a time, there's still the same problem. it's a bad transfer.)
103 - zingzing
but i did find a copy at pitzer college's website. i'll bookmark it.
104 - troll
zingzing - 101 was meant as a stale joke
I've heard of mac's strengths - but have never appreciated them for myself
I'll get back to you in the indefinite internet future with something on expropriation
105 - Clavos
Glenn, I never suggested we get rid of welfare, just that we improve it to where it does some good for the millions mired in lifelong poverty. Both zing and troll pointed out that there are some training programs in some areas such as NYC and NM (likely not in MS, AR, AL and other enlightened states -- probably not FL, either, we make sex offenders live under bridges, like trolls), but obviously, they aren't enough.
106 - zingzing
actually, clavos, look in your arts weekly or other relatively cheap spaces for classified advertising (maybe even the main daily newspaper, given the state of print advertising today). there will be a section for "job training" or something like that. all those vocational schools will have something that says something like "financial aid available to those who qualify," which may refer to a lot of things, but will also refer to the ATB grants i referenced earlier. check to see if there are any such ads in the miami papers. it's a federal program, so it doesn't matter where you are, and i'd bet such training programs are available with those grants to those that qualify (as in, pass the test). several of the schools i've looked at make money hand over fist (what a strange phrase...) getting students who never graduated or got their ged.
107 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos - I'd love to improve welfare et al - but are you willing to pay the extra taxes to pay for it? I am, of course, but then i'm a liberal.
108 - Clavos
but are you willing to pay the extra taxes to pay for it?
No, but I'm willing to cut many government departments substantially - we could do away with the surface navy totally -- there'll be more than enough money to pay for it and still cut taxes.
109 - zingzing
clavos: "I'm willing to cut many government departments substantially - we could do away with the surface navy totally..."
why can't this kind of shit come up in congress? a reasonable senator or congressman could present this idea to both his colleagues and the public in such a manner that the receive the general wisdom of it. and it would save so much goddamn money. (and it's the fucking military, so the gov't could do what it wants without worrying about the private sector, to a degree.)
but will it happen? nah. prolly not...
that would make too much sense.
normal people: "but, when we can fly, why do we need boats?"
navy admiral: "sailers sail. what else can they do? to war!"
110 - zingzing
"that the receive"
fuck. "that they would receive"
i dunno.
111 - Clavos
I'd keep the nuke subs, because each of them has more firepower than the entire WW II USN, and they're a good deterrent force, but warfare has bypassed surface ship operations for the most part, and what little remains (Somali pirates, etc.) could be covered by the Coast Guard -- I'd transfer the most modern USN ships (the missile frigates, e.g.) to the CG and scrap the rest.
All those laid off sailors would add to the unemployment problem, at least temporarily, however.
112 - Boeke
The republicans have controlled the House for over 100 days and not introduced a single jobs bill. I conclude that they are anti-worker. That being the case, I expect nothing but more deprivations from American working people by the Republican party, the Tea party, and various rightist mouthpieces.
As near as I can see those rightists would just as soon American workers lose their homes and die of illness and starvation by millions in American streets. They are utterly selfish.
So why would any serious person take them seriously? Especially reflexive liars like Nalle and Clavos?
The only way to solve our unemployment problems with a longterm solution is to cut the workweek. The only way to get this solution considered, even put on any political table is with a strong union.
We need strong union presence to push forward decreases in the workweek and create balance in the corporate power structure.
In fact, we have been doing the opposite, so the situation is getting worse. Hard-pressed workers, with weak or non-existent collective bargaining power (in contrast to corporate management and ownership , who have almost limitless bargaining power) are driven to compete with each other by putting in unpaid hours, so the workweek has crept up over 46 hours.
Every year that goes by the productivity of US workers goes up, partly due to new technology and partly due to voluntary (and usually self-paid) up-training by workers. This increase in productivity is inexorable, apparently. We used to be able to absorb excess productivity with increased consumption, but several factors are cutting that.
Corporate management is generally against cutting the workweek because their huge unearned incomes come from the large margin between cost and price. Wage pressure will affect them disproportionately, in the same way that excess margin benefited them disproportionately.
Other plans for increasing employment are proven failures. Giving money to capital is hopeless: we have a huge capital oversupply, not the least of which is $2trillion in business retained earnings and $2trillion in banked savings, so that it's like pushing a rope. Re-training and industrial education are hopeless because there is no shortage of trained people. Besides, with their huge loan failure rates it's becoming obvious that the commercial education operations are basically scams to defraud the taxpayer.
Cutting deficits, Tea Party style, is counter productive because it cuts total cash flow and cash velocity in the economy, starving markets even further, discouraging investment, etc., the whole Death Spiral.
113 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
(my question) but are you willing to pay the extra taxes to pay for it?
(your answer) No, but I'm willing to cut many government departments substantially - we could do away with the surface navy totally -- there'll be more than enough money to pay for it and still cut taxes.
And I point you back to Oscar Wilde's quip that cynics know the price of everything and the VALUE of nothing.
Do you not know, Clavos, that taxes are lower now than they've been in many a year? And while we're watching our national infrastructure - and the businesses that directly benefit from said infrastructure - go down the toilet due to lack of funding, your people are crying for still more tax cuts? By cutting taxes too low, you're not starving the beast - you're starving the business community by the gradual deterioration of the infrastructure that supports them.
And btw - when it comes to the Navy, there's an old saying - "amateurs talk firepower, while professionals discuss logistics". Have you ever tried to land a battalion of Marines by submarine? It doesn't work too well. And submarines by themselves cannot control and safeguard sea lanes and choke points, much less conduct rescue operations of more than a few people at a time.
So no, it would be a grave mistake to get rid of the surface fleet as a whole. The carrier fleet gives America a flexibility enjoyed by no other nation - each one comprising 4.5 acres of sovereign American territory, mobile air bases able to project power for a thousand miles in any direction - but IMO the cost is too great. But to get rid of the entire surface fleet would be tantamount to resigning America's single greatest visible claim to primacy in wartime and peacetime. Check out Alfred Thayer Mahan's landmark "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660 - 1783". Times have changed, but the principles described therein have not.
114 - Clavos
Landing marines (and other troops -- I landed in Vietnam from an Army LST) is already being handled by the other services and has been for decades.
And submarines by themselves cannot control and safeguard sea lanes and choke points, much less conduct rescue operations of more than a few people at a time
The Coast Guard is more than adequate for both jobs; rescue is their primary mission (or was, until they were given the Augean task of drug interdiction).
Times have changed, but the principles described therein have not.
Yes, indeed, the times (and warfare) have changed -- substantially. From Vietnam forward, the surface Navy's role (and usefulness in fighting the wars) has steadily declined, not because the Navy is any less prepared than it historically has been, but because the nature of warfare (particularly as waged by America) has changed substantially, with much of modern wars being fought at a distance and with missiles and drones, which is why I said upthread that we should keep the missile frigates active.
115 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Landing marines (and other troops -- I landed in Vietnam from an Army LST) is already being handled by the other services and has been for decades.
And who protected the LST on its way there? And can submarines conduct defense against anti-ship cruise missiles? Can submarines conduct anti-air operations? And you flatly ignored what I posted about control of sea lanes and choke points and conduct of rescue ops. What would happen to Big Oil's supertankers proceeding through the Strait of Hormuz if we didn't have Aegis-equipped destroyers on station to protect them from cruise missiles if, say, Iran decided to close down the Strait to all surface traffic? And what would happen to the worldwide economy as a result? Look at what happened to our gas prices right now because of the Libyan civil war...and then think about what would happen if Iran closed down the most valuable naval choke point on the planet?
A retired Marine once rightly told me that ground can't be controlled without boots on the ground...but outside of North America, American boots cannot be brought there in sufficient strength safely and (more importantly) supported reliably without a strong surface Navy. You might point out Afghanistan...but were we opposing an organized nation that could field a significant standing army? No...and that's why the Navy was crucial in our (quite illegal) invasion of Iraq.
Clavos, despite my lifetime of (admittedly amateur) study of military history, I would be somewhat hesitant to be an armchair general in a discussion with you due to your real-world experience...and by the same token, I would suggest that being an armchair admiral is not your forte.
116 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos -
Don't feel bad - it's pretty common for those who served in one service to underestimate the importance of the other services.
But in my experience, such underestimations are made much more often by those who did not decide to make it a full career in the military.
117 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos - the Coast Guard doesn't operate in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz. The also don't operate in the Malacca Strait (through which passes more cargo ships than any other sea lane in the world), or one either end of the Suez Canal, or in the strait between Taiwan and China (thereby providing a visible barrier whenever China gets a little too belligerent).
118 - Clavos
And who protected the LST on its way there?
We were alone -- all the way around the horizon.
And you flatly ignored what I posted about control of sea lanes and choke points and conduct of rescue ops.
No, I didn't. You don't read well.
What would happen to Big Oil's supertankers proceeding through the Strait of Hormuz if we didn't have Aegis-equipped destroyers on station to protect them from cruise missiles if, say, Iran decided to close down the Strait to all surface traffic?
One of the reasons I exempted the missile frigates and nuke boats.
American boots cannot be brought there in sufficient strength safely...
Bull. In Vietnam, and ever since the, we have moved our troops by air, which is way faster and infinitely more efficient. When LBJ escalated American presence in VN to unit level (as opposed to the advisers only up to that point, we sent three or four troopship loads over (I was on the first), but then sent (and returned) ALL our troops by air. Why? Because, for one thing, The USNS General R.M. Blatchford (on which I had the misfortune of being an involuntary passenger) took 28 days to get from Oakland to Cam Ranh Bay -- 28 days in the South Pacific in the summer (August) in am overcrowded (designed for 2500, carried 3500 troops) un-air conditioned rust bucket. Thankfully, I flew home a year later -- 29 hours, Saigon to Oakland with fuel stops at Clark and Hickam on a chartered civilian airliner (anyone remember the long-defunct Northeast Airlines?).
the Coast Guard doesn't operate in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz. The also don't operate in the Malacca Strait (through which passes more cargo ships than any other sea lane in the world), or one either end of the Suez Canal, or in the strait between Taiwan and China...
The Coast Guard operates anywhere in the world the government orders it to, including Vietnam , back in the day. It can go to Hormuz or Malacca -- or anywhere.
119 - Clavos
The point is, Glenn, that, given the ways modern wars are fought and are evolving, the surface navies (all of them, not just ours) are becoming increasingly irrelevant and superfluous. Already we could eliminate more than half our surface ships without affecting our security at all.
120 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You know, I suspect that you and are not as far apart as you might think, since after carriers, all that's left (other than supply ships and 'gator freighters') are missile ships.
121 - OG
First, hello everybody, long time no see ...
Just a quick interjection - as a marine hitting the beach - #119: thanks Clavos, you're making progress.
Have a nice day.
OG
122 - Boeke
Shouldn't Big Oil pay their own security costs so that the cost is properly allocated to their customers, oil users?
"What would happen to Big Oil's supertankers proceeding through the Strait of Hormuz if we didn't have Aegis-equipped destroyers on station to protect them from cruise missiles if, say, Iran decided to close down the Strait to all surface traffic?"
123 - troll
What would happen...
we at Acme Bicycles have a proposal in place for just such an occurrence
here is a rather long advertising piece put together at the behest of our pr team showing the possible benefits that municipal governments could realize through contracting with us...Cuba was only a small test market of course
124 - Glenn Contrarian
Boeke -
Now, now - you know that if we didn't provide our Navy ships to protect them and also pay them billion in taxpayer subsidies, Big Oil would go flat broke!
Or at least the campaign funds of the Republicans would take a major hit....
125 - Clavos
Shouldn't Big Oil pay their own security costs so that the cost is properly allocated to their customers, oil users?
Yes. And while we're at it, let's withdraw ALL gummint subsidies from ALL industries, most especially agriculture.
And let's stop bailing out badly run corporations -- it only perpetuates bad business practices.