Presented without comment
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 14:26:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically.
Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands.
When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation.
This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake.
Never has an empire been so fragile.
Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.
The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change?
I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible.
Trivial even.
Deterministic.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 11:38:00 UTC
-
THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN Assuming: Your credi
THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN
Assuming:
Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400),
Your first car costs 30,000(550), and
Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and
Your home 350,000(1,400/M),
That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees.
that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest.
If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes.
That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year.
Yeah. that’s not cheap.
So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options:
1) An increase of 1030 in taxes.
2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%)
3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years.
Ok, so, of these optoins,
1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates.
2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small.
3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.)
So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living?
Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008?
Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity.
We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject.
Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant.
This is trivially easy to accomplish – really.
And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 10:50:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 08:49:00 UTC
-
“Complete amnesty. Open borders. $50 minimum wage. Universal Basic Income. Free
—“Complete amnesty. Open borders. $50 minimum wage. Universal Basic Income. Free healthcare for all. Hate speech laws. 90% tax rates. Let’s do this!”—John Derbyshire
There are 323 Million People
Less than 150M are Taxpayers.
Total Economy is 18.5 Trillion
Total Tax Collection is 6.5 Trillion (35% of the total economy)
Total Tax Collection per Individual is $20,000 per person
Federal Tax Collection is 3.4 Trillion (the rest is state and local)
Total Federal Tax Collection per individual is ~$10,000.
About 45% pay no (income) taxes in any given year.
50% of all income taxpayers (~70-75M) paid 98% of taxes.
Meaning that they paid an average of $45,000 per person(but highly skewed to the top).
The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).
You know, when the total discretionary tax revenue per person is $3,000 and even under the most aggressive taxation possible, might be $4000, and vast numbers of men are already permanently exiting the labor pool, leaving the lowest labor participation rate in history, I am trying to figure out how the math works. Or rather. I know full well how the math works: it doesn’t.
So if there is any possible way to provide ‘welfare’ (minimum income or whatever) to some part of the population, I don’t know how that’s going to happen.
The postwar period is over and western institutional, intellectual, and technological advances over the rest of the world have been neutralized, and western labor’s advantage has been neutralized by globalism.
Where the hell is this money going to come from? We will all be as poor as europeans for having imported the underclasses of the third world.
ALTERNATE SOLUTION
My solution is much different: and involves eliminating all consumer interest through direct zero interest consumption loans from the central treasury, and direct redistribution of liquidity to consumers in order to manage the money supply (commercial interest rates).
This makes everyone a shareholder in the USA with liquidity and dividends paid directly to the consumer.
In other words, this puts the consumer (citizenry) in competition with the state for profits (taxes), suppresses tolerance for immigration, and produces just about every other good incentive that we can manage.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 08:28:00 UTC
-
by Jason Welty The cult of empire extends all the way back to the founding of th
by Jason Welty
The cult of empire extends all the way back to the founding of the nation. As far as I’m aware the US is unique in that it’s the only nation to establish itself as an empire from its founding. Immediately one must develop a characteristic common to irrational beliefs, cognitive dissonance.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 21:24:00 UTC
-
America is now a cult with an army not a country
America is now a cult with an army not a country.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 18:33:00 UTC
-
I have no problem b–ch slapping idiots who socialize on the phone in public pla
I have no problem b–ch slapping idiots who socialize on the phone in public places; and I understand the importance of taking business calls even when it’s inconvenient. And yes, not only have I been unintentionally loud in restaurants, and yes, at least in the past, I’ve been overloaded, distracted, or clueless enough to be profoundly rude in un-exitable places like airplanes, airports, lobbies and streets outside of restaurants, and yes, I understand third worlders are uncivilized animals who blither endlessly, express themselves loudly, gesture freely, impede people with more urgent matters, treat public spaces like extensions of their favella-hovels, and otherwise soil the the commons with their display, word, and deed. But you know when a fellow anglo saxon acts like one of the underclasses and semi-domesticated animals, it irritates the hell out of me. Thankfully, in my middle age, I’m patient enough to simply, and in friendly manner, remind the individual that he’s unaware that he’s very loud, and that an hour long business and finance call needs be made in a better setting. The difference is that fellow anglo saxons at least apologize for their inconsiderate behavior, instead of look at you cluelessly or get angry for disciplining them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 17:14:00 UTC
-
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.”
—“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend.
I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done.
So…
Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.”
Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them.
What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”.
And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible.
And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally.
I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good.
And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 16:57:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 15:49:00 UTC