tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post3529488109939809517..comments2023-09-25T09:26:32.591-04:00Comments on The Loop and The Lou: A Conservative ManifestoRollerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-4669183750513445672009-04-10T19:28:00.000-04:002009-04-10T19:28:00.000-04:00from today's WSJ:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...from today's WSJ:<BR/><BR/>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123933106888707793.html#mod=article-outset-boxkevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-3127533718980671132009-04-10T12:45:00.000-04:002009-04-10T12:45:00.000-04:00Yes, please do separate posts.Yes, please do separate posts.Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-22021650365188544022009-04-10T12:21:00.000-04:002009-04-10T12:21:00.000-04:00isn't it nuts that basically everybody goes ou...isn't it nuts that basically everybody goes out to H&R or gets turbo tax, and spends 60 bucks in order to do their taxes.<BR/><BR/>people spending money to pay taxes.<BR/><BR/>i also think you're allowed to write that off, which i think is hilarious. <BR/><BR/>just a strange concept when you back up and take another look at it.kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-712587065232508442009-04-10T11:03:00.000-04:002009-04-10T11:03:00.000-04:00Kev, your points about tax evasion are dead on. O...Kev, your points about tax evasion are dead on. Our own Money Czar Comrade Geithner was guilty of tax evasion. If you take him at his word, he said it was just too complex to comply.<BR/><BR/>With all the jazz I've posted, the main debates seem to be over taxation and illegal immigration.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'll do separate posts for each, perhaps combined. They need a little more exploration than this he-said/she-said type debate.<BR/><BR/>So think about what is important about citizenship and taxation.<BR/><BR/>But before then, I still need to do my taxes!Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-63559305854699034952009-04-09T12:02:00.000-04:002009-04-09T12:02:00.000-04:00i think our tax code is hugely important to how ou...i think our tax code is hugely important to how our country is run. however, i don't see the debate happening, be it fairtax or anything. during our last 2 year election process, it just wasn't on the table. it gets mentioned, sure, but it's just not a core issue unfortunately. not only is it not a common thread in the main media, but i don't hear about it at more social events when politics comes up. it's funny that we (our countrymen) focus on social issues that by and large literally don't affect us (gay marriage, gun rights, even deporting illegals), but taxation is boring and not really brought up.<BR/><BR/>something interesting about taxation, is that there aren't really easy party positions/platforms to spit out at cocktail parites. it's one of those things where a carefully worded poll would have results that didn't correlate neatly to political parties. to me, that means a meaningful debate is possible.<BR/><BR/>i don't like our tax system now, but to say that it has "done nothing but cause poverty and increase wealth disparity" is going a bit far.<BR/>anyone know how much it costs us to comply with our current tax code?<BR/>"$265 billion that we spend each year measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income." how is that not insane...<BR/><BR/>here's one more quote. if this interests you at all, check out the faq page for fairtax. it fixes so many absurdities we deal with today:<BR/>http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq<BR/><BR/>"The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars [KM's note - this is mostly the drug and porn industries]. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.<BR/><BR/>The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>jim - that regulator did mention that our current crisis dwarfs the S&L scandals (Madoff alone did more damage than the S&Ls). he also noted that there are significantly fewer feds trying to figure out what happened (i think like 80% fewer?). after 9/11, white collar crime was depleted in order to focus on terrorism. but those spots were never filled afterwards. that, coupled with decreasing regulations, is a bad recipe. the best point he brings up is, where's the investigation? <BR/>you also mention the rating agencies. from what i've heard they were acting in concert with the investment banks. more reason to investigate for fraud.kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-71417328340895510822009-04-08T22:50:00.000-04:002009-04-08T22:50:00.000-04:00"You might not think our tax system should be used..."You might not think our tax system should be used to redistribute wealth, but it obviously is, and as I stated before, I don't think this is very controversial. Those that benefit the most in our society should be expected to contribute more."<BR/><BR/>It has nothing to do with what I think. It has to do with the function of the tax system in a supposedly non socialist country. If we are socialist or want that, then you are right, we should allow the government to redistribute wealth/income and manage their version of economic justice. Those who "benefit" most from our society do pay the most, especially under a flat system with no loopholes. Or under a consumption tax. The incredible influx of money into the economy alone would much more immediately benefit the unemployed than would any of these giant gov't programs or the current tax code.<BR/><BR/>If an individual feels they benefit too much from a free society, they are free to donate as much of their income as they want that they wish had been taxed instead to a charity of their choice. They do not have the right to force their beliefs on you though. Or they could move to Europe, etc.<BR/><BR/>I only offer the belief that everbody who benefits by virtue of their citizenship should at least pay something. Saying that a low, simple, and "fair" tax code makes the poor poorer is like saying buying food and paying rent makes them poorer as well. Charity is charity. Taxes are not. Progressive tax systems have done nothing but cause poverty and increase wealth disparity.<BR/><BR/>"Really, the mainstream tax debate is about how progressive the system should be (not whether it should be progressive)."<BR/><BR/>This is presumptuous and untrue. I'm not saying there's no debate about maybe a low income cutoff (which I disagree with, but that's where the debate is), I'm saying that the flat tax and fairtax plans are now the most debated in our country, and the current corrupt system is what is being rejected. <BR/><BR/>3) Jim, I consider you an expert in your area of finance. And I have other friends in finance as well. And I've listened to insane amounts of TV experts and read incredible volumes about it.<BR/><BR/>I have not heard one argument why letting these companies fail would have been a worse option than funding their failure in an effort to continue to falsify prices, create more uncertainty in the market and the economy, and make sure the bailout goes primarily to the priviledged people who caused it.<BR/><BR/>Financial experts have only resorted to hysteria when challenged as such. "Trust me's" and "the whole world would explode" are two common sentiments, neither of which I believe anymore.<BR/><BR/>Letting Lehman brothers fail for example had no effect on anyone except for people who lost their jobs in that company and who lost money with them.<BR/><BR/>The bailouts have not worked and have prolonged the current pain by disguising the damage done rather than behing honest, wasting the resources we have, and shoveling our children in even more debt. Bailouts throughout all of our history have not worked. Bailouts prolonged the great depression. But the do nothing policies only about a decade before that let a one year depression happen, then heal, then unleash the roaring 20s. We hear nothing about it because it healed itself without any heroics on the part of the government or elites.<BR/><BR/>Imagine you flood the economy with $700 billion, and then $700 billion more. You immediately debase the currency and cause future inflation, which affects poor people the most because they save less and their wages rise slowly if at all. <BR/><BR/>That chunk of money takes time to trickle down through the economy and cause prices to rise. But the people who get access to it first, enjoy it at the dollar's current value. Imagine you put a red 'x' on each of those bills (if they were in cash). It would take a long time for all those red 'x's to show up in our pockets. And although I agree with you that sheer fraud was probably low on the totem pole, we are still rewarding a sub-culture of people in our country who have extremely bad judgment, are ruled by greed, and are insulated by the politicians they buy and we elect.<BR/><BR/>So, I don't fault you for arguing on behalf of what might literally be your job at stake, I would too, but there needs to be a better argument for people not in finance to understand.<BR/><BR/>I have not yet heard one.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-84444128891507974182009-04-08T20:52:00.000-04:002009-04-08T20:52:00.000-04:00Guys: just really quickly, a few misc points -1. ...Guys: just really quickly, a few misc points -<BR/><BR/>1. Re: Wal-Mart. Keep in mind that most Wal-Mart locations are in non-urban locations (like my hometown of Cuba, MO). Wal-Mart moved in there in the mid or late 80s - can't remember exactly when, although I do remember it was a big deal. And I honestly can' recall any "local businesses" that went under. I think there was some small "dime store" (seriously), but the thing is, Wal-Mart is able to come in and provide consumers with a much larger assortment of product at a lower price. It saves the local people a lot of $$, which is important as the vast majority of people in the area don't have much (in this or any economy). And, as Kevin pointed out, they actually do give back to local communities (my mom has taken advantage of this). All of this does not excuse their failure to pay a living wage to their employees. I understand the need to maintain cost discipline, but a smart business considers all of its stakeholders (including employees) and makes sure employees are not so underpaid that they qualify for Medicaid. If Wal-Mart would have been smarter on this point and not so focused on costs, they may have avoided the reputational damage that has now resulted in massive public debates and legislative action that keeps them out of certain communities (like Chicago).<BR/><BR/>2. You might not think our tax system should be used to redistribute wealth, but it obviously is, and as I stated before, I don't think this is very controversial. Those that benefit the most in our society should be expected to contribute more. Really, the mainstream tax debate is about how progressive the system should be (not whether it should be progressive). I know this is "reality based" rather than "principal based", but just humor me. <BR/><BR/>3. I didn't get through that entire NPR interview w/ that bank regulator guy, but understand his points. A lot of good points, mistakes made all around. Where does greed end and fraud begin? Clearly mortgage brokers were originating loans that they knew the borrowers couldn't repay, but they did so b/c they knew there was a buyer on the other end. They weren't taking the risk. I guess the buyers of the securities have an argument against the rating agencies (I think it is a strong argument in fact), but again, not sure you can really prove the fraud. And frankly, all the buyers of mortgage CDOs are sophisticated institutional investors. Your grandmother wasn't going out and buying it (although her $$ were in the pension fund that was). I like to think the problem was more a combination of incompetence, greed, mis-incentives, and high leverage, with some fraud mixed in. By the way, know who owns a big chuck of Moody's (one of the big rating agencies)? Buffet.<BR/><BR/>Also, while the S&L crisis is an obvious touchstone, it's scale isn't even close to what we are dealing with now. Total cost of the S&L problem was about $120BN. Clearly we have far surpassed that here (and don't be so naive to think that we are done).<BR/><BR/>Finally, while it is distasteful to say the least that we are bailing out these big institutions (Banks) that are private companies, took stupid risks, and lost, we can't let them fail. Simply can't. We tried that with Lehman and the results were not good. And Citi and B of A (Both of whom are effectively insolvent) dwarf Lehman. As a taxpayer, one regulation I would like to see in the future is a cap on the size of these financial institutions. If a company is "too big to fail", I say it is too big and should be forced to break up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16188573057297597651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-8637321681019478032009-04-08T19:30:00.000-04:002009-04-08T19:30:00.000-04:00yea - Guido doesn't really pull on the heartstring...yea - Guido doesn't really pull on the heartstrings, although I don't think he deserved to die.<BR/><BR/>there are lots more stories like this:<BR/><BR/>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_detention_us/incustody_deaths/index.html<BR/><BR/>I actually do think that the best solution for all these folks here without documents is a clear path to citizenship. But, you're right, that's a whole other debate.G. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-53362642229418395692009-04-08T19:16:00.000-04:002009-04-08T19:16:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.G. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-14596312902025632452009-04-08T18:58:00.000-04:002009-04-08T18:58:00.000-04:00Yeah, I should have said, 'no principled human rig...Yeah, I should have said, 'no principled human rights' problems. The U.S. is not responsible for the kind of situation an adult put their family in.<BR/><BR/>If we started a massive program to deport people who should not be here, then I'm sure a problem like basic medical supervision could easily be overcome. The level of processing is so much smaller than even criminal trials, so the detainee systems would be way simpler.<BR/><BR/>I am also pretty sure that far fewer people would die being kicked out of the U.S. than have already died trying to sneak in, or sneaking in and dying from exposure and lack of legal protection, etc.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm not pretending to propose full solutions here. I'm starting with principle and working towards solutions. The problem is our nation's status quo is so devoid of principle and so wrought with bureaucracy (which is the vast majority of the "complexity" you speak of) that our "pragmatic" solutions tend to cause problems or make them worse, not solve them. Now is a crucial time in our history where people need to be reacquainted with first principles and history.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps a more dangerous consequence of not guiding this process in a principled manner is a heavy-handed fascist response, which will come soon if we don't solve this and other problems responsibly.<BR/><BR/>If you want to start from the principle that 12-20 million illegal aliens should become citizens, then we have a debate on a different level. I don't think you're saying that. But there are many in our country who have been so dumbed down as to why anything matters at all, that they may think that's fine and that massive illegal immigration isn't really a problem.<BR/><BR/>FYI, the NYT should probably find a better hero than a child-molesting illegal alien. I just couldn't muster a lot of sympathy for Guido.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-86269323967432634662009-04-08T17:32:00.000-04:002009-04-08T17:32:00.000-04:00I suppose my overall point is this - you present s...I suppose my overall point is this - you present some very simple solutions to very complex problems. The problem with this approach is that the details matter, and usually matter the most to people with the least power, or voice. <BR/><BR/>Luckily for us, policy isn't being written here on TLATL. <BR/><BR/>"But deporting someone who is here illegally raises no human rights problems that I can see, regardless of them being a breadwinner, etc."<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/28detain.html?_r=2&hpG. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-91201967127068557322009-04-07T15:17:00.000-04:002009-04-07T15:17:00.000-04:00G, you make some good points to the extent that pr...G, you make some good points to the extent that principles can't be flawlessly adhered to while solving problems. I think we've all come to agreement over that.<BR/><BR/>The last thing anyone wants is to lay a foundation for some fascist witch hunt.<BR/><BR/>Kev got nearer the point when he mentioned sealing the borders while straightening out the "illegals" situations. Doing anything less would be futile.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for bringing up the traffic analogy. Never justify a stronger argument with a weaker one!<BR/><BR/>I do, however, think a lot of your suggestions are weak as well. In other words you don't really argue that other more powerful principles would be compromised just that the feasibility would be difficult. Saying someone's documents may have been lost in a fire is a ridiculous impediment.<BR/><BR/>The main obstacle to this problem is the unclear definition on what it means to be a citizen and how is that condition proven? Is a passport enough? A birth certificate?<BR/><BR/>This may be out of our reach, but there are clearly standards that IMS has to follow. All of my friends who are here from other countries know exactly what they have to do (and what they can't do) to get that status. <BR/><BR/>The burden of compliance could easily fall on businesses and schools. But deporting someone who is here illegally raises no human rights problems that I can see, regardless of them being a breadwinner, etc.<BR/><BR/>And insisting that poor people pay some taxes is not a violation of anything either. The tax system is not an income redistribution system, so the argument that it would make poor people poorer is moot.<BR/><BR/>Basically, there are no principled arguments against what I have said. There is just the common sense idea of not letting the solution become worse than the problem. That's fine.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-4845731293690650152009-04-06T14:39:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:39:00.000-04:00G - i'm with you regarding deportation. i think it...G - i'm with you regarding deportation. i think it would be an enormous disaster. it's great example of what i was talking about, because in principle, i understand how crucial it is to enforce laws. <BR/><BR/>we do need to do something, and i think it starts with patching the leak. fix the borders (which isn't easy either), then we can worry about the US citizen children with alien parents. <BR/><BR/>as far as walmart, that site was put up by the labor union group. that doesn't mean what they say is wrong, but it will surely give a one sided argument at best, but more than likely it uses stats to persuade and even distort the reality.<BR/><BR/>don't get me wrong, i'm glad these groups exist, and i'm sure walmart has made their fair share of transgressions. i hope this groups keeps the spotlight on those. i still think though, that they are fundamentally a positive company and they should be allowed to leverage their success and money in order to supply americans with low cost goods. in other words, i think they should be allowed to import cheap goods (that's what this whole thing is basically about). <BR/><BR/>this is copied from what looked like a bloomberg-esque site that pulled info from financial records:<BR/><BR/>Wal-Mart's FYE 2009 giving breakdown:<BR/><BR/>In the U.S., Wal-Mart gave more than $378 million in cash and in-kind gifts, up from $296 million in 2007.<BR/>In international markets, Wal-Mart gave $45.5 million in cash and in-kind gifts, up from $41 million in 2007. <BR/>Globally, Wal-Mart's customers and associates gave more than $106 million through in-store giving programs that benefit local charities. <BR/>In total, Wal-Mart, its Foundations, its customers and its associates supported communities around the globe with nearly $530 million in charitable contributions during FYE 2009.<BR/>In the U.S., Wal-Mart is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those on Main Street who have turned to organizations like Feeding America to make ends meet. For example, Wal-Mart's food donation program has provided more than 33 million pounds of fresh produce, meat and other nutritious foods to U.S. food banks. These in-kind contributions have an estimated value of more than $85 million. Walmart stores and Sam's Club locations remain on track to donate 90 million pounds of food by November 2009.kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-9229381592147561812009-04-06T03:42:00.000-04:002009-04-06T03:42:00.000-04:00Don't get me wrong, I love principles - some of my...Don't get me wrong, I love principles - some of my best friends are principles. I just think that when you find yourself adhereing to a certain set of principles, and thereby violating another, there is a problem that needs a more creative solution.<BR/><BR/>This question of mass deportation illustrates this well. <BR/><BR/>Deporting anyone here without proper documentation is ridiculous at the very least because of the sheer size. The logistics of rounding up 20 million, or 12 million, or even 6 million people, putting them on a bus or train, or boat, and shipping them off to different countries would be incomprehensibly complex, and amazingly expensive. And if we want to try to ensure we don't violate any basic human rights in the process, it will be even harder.<BR/><BR/>Now if you're just talking about driving around, grabbing people off the street that look illegal and putting them on buses, maybe it's possible. Or maybe we could just ask people on the street who look suspicious - are you illegal? - and if they say yes, tag them and put them on the bus.<BR/><BR/>No, to do this right, you'd have to find some way that everyone else would have to verify citizenship (since no one gets an "illegal" stamp in their passport) and anyone not able to produce that verification would be put on the bus. <BR/><BR/>Even this, though, is very difficult due to the huge number of citizens born at home or other situation where a proper birth record isn't obtained, or who's document have been lost in fire, or other damage, and just people who aren't connected in mainstream ways. It would be very difficult, and expensive, to verify the stories of everyone who can't produce an identity document. The consequences of getting even one case wrong, and a citizen deported, would seem to be a pretty big deal. Not to mention the fact that it would likely be the poor who would most often be mistakenly deported.<BR/><BR/>Pres. Bush already tried something like this last year and failed. Right along with the Lou Dobbs campaign of xenophobia, he instituted a new requirement for people getting federal health care to prove each year that they are citizens. (This was in addition to the citizenship verification process that was already in place.) The Pres. was apparently responding to the common misconception that Mexicans are draining public dollars. After less than a year, however, the new requirement was removed (returned back to the previous verification) because the data clearly showed that 99% of those affected by the new policy were citizens who just couldn't find their right documents. The consequences, however, of that mistake meant that ordinary citizens were denied access to a doctor until they cleared out their mother's old filing cabinet. I guess if they took more personal responsibility they the cabinet wouldn't have gotten so mucked up in the first place, but that's another misplaced conversation. <BR/><BR/>The other serious issue is that many, many families have mixed status - so this mass deportation exercise would in many many instances would involve splitting families, separating siblings, and removing parents from children, and if that doesn't grind against your Christian morals, it would also, in many cases, involve removing the sole bread-winner in a household full of people who are here with the right papers. How does that help anyone?<BR/><BR/>It's not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem. It is a problem when people are able to be exploited b/c they have no rights. It is a problem when a family doesn't report a domestic violence situation to the police b/c someone else in the family doesn't have papers. And it's a problem for everyone that there are entire industries that depend on labor that will work for less than a living wage.<BR/><BR/>But the solution has to respect the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me back to this principle vs. reality question. <BR/><BR/>I agree that we need, and should develop a sound, principled immigration policy that effectively keeps track of folks coming in and out of the country and appropriately punishes people who violate such policy. Whatever the Constitution says about immigration, we should develop our policy accordingly.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, the reality is that our current and previous immigration policy has, and is continuing to fail, evidenced by the 12-20 million people in our communities NOW, who call for a reality based solution.<BR/><BR/>There are in fact more reasonable solutions to illegal immigration out there that adhere to principles of justice and human rights. Most of the ones I like involve a process of normalization that allows people to come out of the shadows and have some basic rights.<BR/><BR/>There's plenty of discussion on real immigration solutions to be had, and I am interested in what people think.<BR/><BR/>But my main point here is this - living by principle alone is a bad idea. You always need a reality check, especially when dealing with people's lives. Just because the tax code is complicated now doesn't mean we should wipe it clean on principle if that would make poor families poorer. Those aren't blades of grass you're cutting, those are people's paychecks. I'm not clear, Ryan, if you're arguing against that. <BR/><BR/>One last thing - the comparison of mass deportation and mass ticketing is as true as it is false, and brings up a little known fact. The comparison is false because it's obviously a much bigger deal to deport people than hand out speeding tickets, but true b/c entering the country without proper papers is exactly the same level of "illegality" as getting a speeding ticket - it's a civil offense.<BR/><BR/>(maybe the Walmart conversation is over, but I found this website to give some background on why Walmart sucks, and what communities can do about it. http://wakeupwalmart.com/)G. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-30087985071594192352009-04-05T16:57:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:57:00.000-04:00Kev, thanks for the link. Great interview. The f...Kev, thanks for the link. Great interview. The fact that there isn't more outrage based on raw knowledge of what these people have done is a testament to the slide our people are on.<BR/><BR/>This is our country. As Ben Franklin responded to Mrs. Powell, "[It's] a republic, if you can keep it."Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-63790947884909791522009-04-05T12:30:00.000-04:002009-04-05T12:30:00.000-04:00welcome vanessa! i hope you chime in more. i guess...welcome vanessa! i hope you chime in more. <BR/><BR/>i guess if people want to get away from walmart, that's fine, but i read that article and i'm not sure what exactly the point is - it certainly proves nothing to me. articles like that are interesting, but it leaves the reader with some vague sense of "this is a big problem" bc it hones in on the part of business where people lose jobs. i think that's unfair, esp because it offers zero solutions on what to do about it. it is an example of how globalization works, but it doesn't show any positive effects, only negative.<BR/><BR/>the reason it offers no solution is that walmart flourishes under free market capitalism, and the solution to "fixing the walmart problem" is to have the government stop them from selling goods at such low costs. or to prevent them from importing certain goods. the 'solution' is basically admitting there's something very wrong with the fabric of our way of life.<BR/><BR/>and poor levi strauss. the company is going under, so they throw in with walmart out of desperation. then they complain because they can't sell their high-end jeans at walmart? ummm, have they ever walkded into a walmart? not exactly a boutique. then the journalist pulls our heart strings by appealing to our sense of history and nostalgia bc of how long levis have been around. but again, they don't have to do business with walmart if they don't want to, and the company was already failing before it signed on! their problem is that no one wants their expensive jeans - it doesn't have to do with walmart.<BR/><BR/>walmart also leans on vendors to lower prices, and threatens with pulling the other business if they don't. i think this is a journalist who hasn't ever worked in a real business, because this happens constantly. that's why every real company has purchasers. that's their job. it's not evil, it's pretty standard negotiations. <BR/><BR/>vendors have to play ball or walmart will figure out a way to manufacture the item for less. that's not evil either. <BR/><BR/>again, i think focusing on giant businesses and casting them as the big evil bully is an easy task. but these articles always back down at the end and they don't extend their own logic. they don't answer "what has walmart done wrong?" or "what should we do to walmart?". <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>just watched this btw. it's with a head regulator who is calling BS on the bailouts, and calling paulson and geitner fraudsters for letting it happen. this financial meltdown was obviously the result of fraud. no two ways about it. the fact that it isn't being uncovered is a crime. he draws a lot of interesting comparisons to the S&L crisis of the 80s. (i find bill moyers annoying, but his guest is very smart and blunt and easy to understand).<BR/>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.htmlkevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-43905904630200437982009-04-04T11:42:00.000-04:002009-04-04T11:42:00.000-04:00I find it interesting that this candidate of chang...I find it interesting that this candidate of change is not only staying directly on the Neocon path but is missing the boat on smaller issues as well.<BR/><BR/>He makes Steven Baldwin look poignant:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GXQ4xSgIuY<BR/><BR/><BR/>Not to mention, he goes on national TV and makes fun of the Special Olympics? That might be worse than any Bush-gaffe or even Dan Quale goof. Can you imagine if Dick Cheney had said that? <BR/><BR/>Obama is a very weird man, I still can't figure him out.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-63777413617489906602009-04-04T11:13:00.000-04:002009-04-04T11:13:00.000-04:00The joys of this complex world!The last two posts ...The joys of this complex world!<BR/><BR/>The last two posts were mine as I was accidentally logged into Vanessa's computer. The one before that is hers.<BR/><BR/>RMMRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-43029219331267658532009-04-04T11:10:00.000-04:002009-04-04T11:10:00.000-04:00Leslita brought up a point about Social Security a...Leslita brought up a point about Social Security and what does it mean to tourniquet it.<BR/><BR/>Social Security as a program alone will bankrupt our country if we do nothing about it. We have a forward-promised debt of $40-50 trillion (for reference, our current national debt is about $10 trillion) that our politicians have not stored in a "lockbox" -- contrary to what my SS annual statements insist -- but have used that revenue rather to solve other problems whenever they needed to get reelected (anyone connecting the theme here?). So, something now needs to be done to get us out of another guvment-induced problem.<BR/><BR/>First off, I don't believe it is right to rip off old people. So we're going to have to pay the piper for the most part. But I think we need to do it while killing SS as a program. So you give young people a way out of it so that it shrinks over time through attrition.<BR/><BR/>If anyone really believes the government will provide for them in old age, they can stay in the program. But if you're like me and think you will do a better job managing your own money than they can, you should just be able to not take part in the system at all.<BR/><BR/>WHen i get a job, fill out some tax forms, check the box saying "I do not want to participate in the Social Security program, I thereby understand I am taking my future in my own hands." I then pay no SS taxes and will receive no benefits. It's not that complex really. <BR/><BR/>As Vanessa said, our country is suffering from a lack of personal responsibility, and programs like these deepen those sad trends while creating impossible financial cycles.<BR/><BR/>I think maybe to help with the owed money, we could offer buyouts to people, settlements of a sort, where we lump a check down and then kick them out of the system.Vanessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00970951434175650889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-76281002976033580292009-04-04T10:57:00.000-04:002009-04-04T10:57:00.000-04:00OK, I'd like to put to rest the debate over Wal-ma...OK, I'd like to put to rest the debate over Wal-mart. There's plenty to read about them if you're interested. Here's a decent article:<BR/><BR/>http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html<BR/><BR/>Wal-mart was only brought up to try to introduce the idea of Economic Sovereignty. This stresses the importance of acknowledging we have economic borders just as well as we do geographical ones. Our politicians seem to have lost regard for both.<BR/><BR/>Why is deporting 12-20 million illegal people obviously ridiculous? Is it the size? Is it that you don't like the thought of throwing out unwanted guests? <BR/><BR/>That's like saying there are 20 million speeding violations in our country, you want us to actually enforce those laws?<BR/><BR/>This mindset becomes more clear in G's additional comments, where it sounds like he says we can take or leave whatever is convenient in our Constitution (let's not follow due course to change it if we need!). This is what I was sure was lurking under these comments defending solving problems without regard for principle.<BR/><BR/>Indeed our world is more complex now, but human nature hasn't changed an iota. It is more important than ever in new and complex times to use traditional principles when making decisions that could never have been made before. Throwing one's hands up in the air and saying politicians are only trying to get elected so what can we do is a sad statement with no meat to it.<BR/><BR/>I also find it ironic that one can be so racially obsessed with the past over things like slavery yet wash hands over the 20 million illegal mexican slaves in our country now.<BR/><BR/>Just because the tax code might again creep out of control after we put it in its place doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done. We don't not cut our lawns because the grass will grow back, rather, that is precisely why we cut them.Vanessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00970951434175650889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-71848667709631269932009-04-04T00:41:00.000-04:002009-04-04T00:41:00.000-04:00So this is my first response to your blog... I thi...So this is my first response to your blog... I think you made some very valid points and it actually made me think about what exactly do I believe in (Still trying to figure that one out). But since I work in the CPG (Consumer Product Goods) Industry I will tag on to what Kevin said about Walmart and Lowes. Both are successful in negotiating what is called an Every Day Low Price Strategy on a few items while making tons of money on electronics or softlines (ie. clothes). Lost leaders are common - usually a well known product such as Windex or Tide. We (Manufacturers) don't sell things below cost; at the same time we don't set price either. We give them a SRP and then it is at the discretion of the retailer. They can decide to lose margin on certain products hoping that when the consumers come in to their stores they will buy other products that will yield higher margins and bigger basket ring. I do think that to some extent its crazy how low they go. But you can't fault them for wanting more people to walk into their stores.<BR/><BR/>Another thing, that we need as a society is personal responsibility. That's what makes all this bailout stuff so frustrating. How many times did we hear when you were a kid, "If you fall, dust yourself off and try again." Why aren't we letting these organizations do just that. If they can turn themselves around great if they can't then next best company wins. It is frustrating that we have developed a culture that feels entitled to everything. Where did strong work ethics go?Vanessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00970951434175650889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-78973278381957901842009-04-03T21:33:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:33:00.000-04:00Great discussion, and great post Ryan. I was read...Great discussion, and great post Ryan. I was ready to get all riled up about it based on the title, but in terms of things that are seriously flawed with our current economy and political system, I agree on most. <BR/><BR/>You're spot on with your condemnation of Wars on Concepts - I'd add the point that the War on Drugs disproportionately affects people of color, leading to an unacceptable gap between races in prison. <BR/><BR/>And I'm ready to campaign for the gold standard. We're off to see/kill the Wizard!<BR/><BR/>Obviously deporting 12-20 million people is ridiculous, but I'm not supposed to mention that (btw when did that ever happen?)<BR/><BR/>I'm pleasantly suprised to read <BR/><BR/>"Free markets are actually sort of delicate and require governments to knock back any bad behavior. They are not "do anything" markets." <BR/><BR/>The points here about the free market - not tricksters - being responsible for economy crunching beasts like Wal-Mart is important. In many ways an unregulated free market is at odds with the principles of the Constitution - government needs to play a strong role in the economy.<BR/><BR/>As for Taxation, I'm no expert, but I think that the point that was made about 15% (or 20% or whatever) being a more significant tax on the poor than the rich is important. It's simple - if a family of 4 is at $2,000 a month, they have trouble paying bills, and 15% is going to be a huge burden, no matter how much they believe in the system. Whereas a family at $20,000 a month won't miss it. This is to me the definition of a regressive tax.<BR/><BR/>So I'm all for a flat tax - simple - one page tax code (except for poor people, see page two, unless you're not poor, but semi-poor, in which case see page 3, but if you're unemployed for part of the year, but the other part are making gagillions, see page 4...) It's not long until we get a much less simple tax code.<BR/><BR/>In regards to this governing by principle, vs. governing by the seat of our pants - aren't we required to do both? It's not as if there's a reset button we can push, and go back and start governing by principles. We live in a dynamic world where demographics are constantly shifting, so laws need to be passed to reflect the changing nature of our country so that people continue to have the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Then these laws need to be analyzed to see if they themselves meet the principles of the constitution (which is why that bonus tax idea isn't going anywhere). <BR/><BR/>And there have been some very bad laws passed in our history using the constitution as justification, that we, on the fly, have removed.<BR/><BR/>Now this isn't to say that there aren't serious flaw in our electoral system. I agree, many of our elected leaders could be more principled, and less on the fly according to their constituency. But, I can't actually blame the politicians, this is the system they're in. All they need to worry about is getting re-eleted, which means making their constituency happy - which is very much on the fly type of legislating. <BR/><BR/>But again, I question this concept that we should return to the past to better deal with current or future situations. I'm just not sure how helpful it is to look at the economy, or political or judicial structure of our founding fathers, since our world is now so radically different, and vastly more complex (do I always have to be the one to bring up the fact that the early American economy was based on slave labor?) Governing can never be a matter of adhering to simple principles laid out by our founding fathers, it's dealing with the reality of the current situation in relation to those principles - and the reality is that our society and economy had serious problems that ran contrary to the Constitution long before this economic collapse.G. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-26496436851856449412009-04-03T20:40:00.000-04:002009-04-03T20:40:00.000-04:00i hate arguing this angle bc it's like arguing for...i hate arguing this angle bc it's like arguing for the rights of mr burns.<BR/><BR/>however, it just goes along with my principles. (boom)<BR/><BR/>i think you're stretching to label walmart as foreign in terms of a small town's perspective. they're not foreign, just bigger. and that doesn't have to make them the bad guy, even though that label makes it easier to bash them<BR/><BR/> but why are they bigger? because of evil sam walton? he actually started with a single, small streetside store for what that's worth.<BR/><BR/>he built his business because he was good at business (good at figuring out what consumers want).<BR/><BR/>they're bigger because they're better at offering people good things for lower prices. <BR/><BR/>here's your quote:<BR/>"But when part of a business strategy is aimed at putting a local company out of business by *setting* prices artificially low rather than *accepting* prices, the harm can be great." <BR/><BR/>you talk about "setting" prices. do you mean selling items for lower? again, that happens constantly, and not just from walmart. small guys do it to other small guys. i've seen small guys do it to walmart even. lowes does it to home depot. <BR/>walmart isn't trying to put that mom and pop shop out of business - they're trying to put everyone out of business. same with mid size companies. <BR/><BR/>would you want to work for a company that wasn't trying to expand market share? would you pipe up at a sales meeting and say "I like the new ad campaign, but i'm afraid it may take business away from our competition." <BR/><BR/>and i've worked with a lot of small town lumber yards actually. you think those owners are putting the profits back into the town? or that the employees make a lot of money? they don't, and they're lucky if they have health insurance. and a lot of the profits are suffocated due to huge inefficiencies with their businesses (that the bigger boys have done away with). <BR/><BR/>also, i'd challenge you that walmart doesn't help local communities too. they're not dumb, and they want to keep expanding. to do that though, they need to prove to the next town council meeting that they are good for communities. speaking of town meeting, towns are also within their rights to ban companies from moving into town if they please.<BR/><BR/>but getting back to the basics, they buy lower thus can afford to sell lower, which by itself would put a lot of businesses under. do you have a problem with that? should there be a special tax on them because they negotiate better costs?<BR/> and they do buy low because of supply and demand. their demand is so great, that they require an enormous supply. this gives them huge leverage when dealing with vendors. (my old company would have negative margins to certain customers every year! but we owned our mills so they got business and it blocked our competition. we'd also have lower margins on bigger customers, and higher margins on smaller customers).<BR/><BR/>i think it's strange that you're so against the bailouts because it would save companies that deserve to go under, but then you have a problem when walmart or lowes puts a company out of business. so again, what's so bad about a company choosing to sell at or below cost with the hopes of future gains? <BR/><BR/>and if you really do have problems with large businesses picking up more business (which in our free market system can result in others going out of business), i'd like to hear exactly how you propose to curb this behavior. the feds? the IRS?kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-33706244948515790302009-04-03T18:55:00.000-04:002009-04-03T18:55:00.000-04:00P.S. I like the Fairtax as well. But what I don't...P.S. I like the Fairtax as well. But what I don't like about it is that the government has to have an active role in administering it, e.g., mailing out checks every month? That bureacracy will expand andn politicians will immediately begin playing people off of each other using those checks.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-71094962533941620322009-04-03T18:49:00.000-04:002009-04-03T18:49:00.000-04:00These are all great comments, exactly the kind of ...These are all great comments, exactly the kind of debate I'm trying to generate through these posts.<BR/><BR/>Jim, I don't think your logic is off at all. However, it's a little unclear by what is meant by "pay more". If you mean some people at the lower end of income earners will pay a higher percentage of their income than they do now (their effective tax rate) then that would probably be true. Would they pay a higher percentage of the taxes paid? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link to work off of:<BR/>http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm<BR/><BR/>The main goal of this is to simplify the loopholes/allowances, etc that the richest people currently use to hide income. This would actually raise their effective tax rate in the cases I mentioned. Yes, Buffet and people like him usually live off of dividends, etc.<BR/><BR/>The economic stimulation effects of lowering tax rates on the rich has been demonstrated repeatedly in our own country and around the world. The effect is twofold: Rich people declare more income, and that income creates more jobs which actually creates more tax payers. Every example of a tax cut in nominal terms actually increases government revenue afterwards. Sort of counter-intuitive, but a clear trend with solid reasoning.<BR/><BR/>But beyond that, the primary goal is to *simplify* the code. There is the reason I mentioned above to do this, there is also the reason I mentioned of creating a stronger national identity that way. The fact that some people in our country pay NO taxes is not right to me. Everyone should pay something by virute of their citizenship. If we had a 2-tier system, i wouldn't argue with that as long as it was extremely simple and with no deductions, but I like the flat idea better.<BR/><BR/>"Progressive" and "Regressive" tax codes are relative terms as well. In the strictest sense, a flat tax is neither, by definition. From my research, a progressive tax system usually shifts more of the burden on the upper middle class - people who earn a lot of money in wages but may not really be "rich". Many argue that a pure flat tax is regressive because 15% of a poor person's wages means more to them than 15% of a rich person's income. I get that, it's a fair critique of the plan.<BR/><BR/>Whatever the result, the tax code needs to be simplified from the ~700 page document it is to a simple document, primarily based on eliminating all the counter-productive loopholes that help people avoid taxation.<BR/><BR/>Kev, from the perspective of a small town, let's say, a company like Wal-Mart is a foreign competitor. The wages of a local company go to local workers, and the profits that go to ownership stay relatively local as well. Wal-Mart tends to drive small companies out of business, drives local jobs out of business, replaces them with crappier jobs, and passes the profits on to the Walton family, who don't spend them in the local town. That is a bad thing when it is happening dishonestly.<BR/><BR/>The economies of scale you mention - buying huge bulks at lower prices - is not the same thing as supply and demand. That is also a great thing about Wal-Mart, which I'm not trying to single out. They also have a superior distribution network that lowers costs. Again, a good thing.<BR/><BR/>But when part of a business strategy is aimed at putting a local company out of business by *setting* prices artificially low rather than *accepting* prices, the harm can be great. The U.S. steel industry has been devastated by this, for example, by foreign "competition".<BR/><BR/>I think you would be alone in defending that type of practice as being fair and acceptible. It is definitely not "free market", which is what my comments were aimed at.<BR/><BR/>You will need to either write more concretely or clarify your own terms, because an improvisational approach as you have defined it would mean one that ignores principle and just deals with context or outcome. And the harms of that are clear.<BR/><BR/>I agree that sometimes principled people let "the perfect get in the way of the good", and I would be more than happy to not let that happen. Principles are ideals, solutions are not perfect.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.com