TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm sorry I don't agree with your fake conservatism. I've been reading you, Meazza & DC Tom for months. My take is you all can't get a hardon so you waste precious life on this worthless board. The true revolutionaries take to the streets. I'm done with you losers. ... This might be the dumbest response to anything that I've ever read. Perhaps you'd care to define my "fake conservatism", and source examples of it? Perhaps you should explain why I, and others, should throw away the lives we've built and embrace an extremist culture of violent revolution? Perhaps you should explain why you believe that intellectual opposition should engage with violence? In your broken world, is there no room for reasoned opposition? I'm waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/why-obama-can-t-solve-inequality.html It’s important to stress that the new study by Chetty et al. simply confirms what other researchers have been finding for years. For instance, Scott Winship, who has worked at Pew and Brookings and now is a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, compared mobility for Americans born in the early 1960s and early 1980s. He found “that upward mobility from poverty to the middle class rose from 51 percent to 57 percent between the early-'60s cohorts and the early-'80s ones. Rather than assert that mobility has increased, I want to simply say—at this stage of my research (which is ongoing)—that it has not declined.” ... Instead, get ready for a long list of calls to maintain and increase many programs that have been in place since before Obama took office: extending unemploymentbenefits (without paying for them by, say, cutting defense spending), making it easier for people to buy or stay in homes whose prices are inflated by government policies, and increasing access to higher education in ways that continue to increase prices far higher than the rate of inflation. Pump more money into a broken K-12 education system whose per-pupils costs rise as results stay flat (certainly the president won’t call for giving parents and children the right to choose their own schools). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm sorry I don't agree with your fake conservatism. I've been reading you, Meazza & DC Tom for months. My take is you all can't get a hardon so you waste precious life on this worthless board. The true revolutionaries take to the streets. I'm done with you losers. Well, ain't that just a feather in your cap then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You're really quite bad at satire. Yeah, looks like it's time for the annual drive by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) the fact that a sizable percentage of most ceo's compensation is provided through low tax burden payments only adds fuel to the argument against exhorbitant ceo pay. many base salaries of top ceo's already surpass the proposed ratio. in those cases, the need to take into account compensation above and beyond the base is moot to the argument. if you want to discuss outlier compensation packages, then the distinction might be necessary but why further complicate the argument? (that's rhetorical. it's clear why you would desire that.) drucker talked about the negative effect that exceeding the ratio had on "the fabric of society". that seems pretty intimately related to what i'm saying. and for the second time, i've not proposed any specific remedy, including legislation, to reach the desired state. Here's something from an economist who gets it. Note the last sentence. In this age of technological dislocation, it would be helpful to have a leader who doesn't incite class warfare. Instead of course we have the Greek Chorus slamming Tom Perkins. Three more years can't go fast enough for me. Edited January 30, 2014 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 So right now you're in the streets causing havoc while posting on your Blackberry? Right on sister! Power to the people! Nothing screams "I'm a revolutionary!" like a guy with a Blackberry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Power to the people! Nothing screams "I'm a revolutionary!" like a guy with a Blackberry. One more reason why BBRY is a terminal short play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You say you want a revolution.....................Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction............................Don't you know that you can count me out But if you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is brother you have to wait But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Here's something from an economist who gets it. Note the last sentence. In this age of technological dislocation, it would be helpful to have a leader who doesn't incite class warfare. Instead of course we have the Greek Chorus slamming Tom Perkins. Three more years can't go fast enough for me. it's a good piece. no doubt one of the the root causes of so much unemployment is technology. i also agree that action needs to be taken before the masses rise up. we just disagree on which actions . gov't subsidies of low minimum wage jobs seems to unfairly benefit low wage industries at the expense of middle class and above tax payers. have we seen countries or states with higher minimum (or average) wages having proportionally and consistently higher unemployment as he predicts (as a result of implementation of job losing automation)? i don't think so. i also agree that state education is part of the solution. finally, i fully agree with his statement "that it's up to the gov't to spread them" regarding the unequal distribution of the benefits of technological advancement. he rules out "punitive taxation" due to high earner mobility but has that largely been the case in his native UK? wealthy people want to live in nice places and many of those places have high taxes. there are many wealthy people in london and new york, for example. so maybe there's a happy medium between what he defines as punitive and what allows the winners to pay more and spread the benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts