The University of Chicago Democrat

@JH/Whomp,

Have you read Nudge? How does it stand next to, say, Freakonomics?

Also, there was a thread, maybe a month or 2 ago, about current investments/economics that you two were commenting on... but I'm at a loss to find it short of sifting through 100s of posts. If you have it handy, toss a linky?
 
I read the whole thing.

It only reinforced my opinion of Obama as someone with no coherent economic speech.

He criticises protectionism but then promisses more protectionism. He keeps talking about the virtues of markets but wants more regulations and to make the tax system even more progressive.

There is nothing "Chicagoan" about him, no matter how much Jericho Hill or the author of said article want to pretend (both are Obama supporters, the former is nothing short of an Obamaniac). Obama is basically an orthodox democrat who pretends to transcend partisanship, and for that he must every now and then speak well of some positions usually identified with the Republicans.
 
W3RD Luiz. W3RD.

So much of his economics talk is entirely circular. "I'm gonna slap a tax on corporations that send jobs overseas, and create tax breaks for corporations that create jobs here in America."

Why not just give corporations tax breaks in the first place so they don't have to ship jobs overseas?

Oh wait, we can't do that, because then we'll have a policy just like John McCain. So we gotta fluff it up with populist BS to make non-thinking idiots of America believe that he's standing up for them.

When you look all the pork he's adding to the budget. When you look at all the regulations and requirements he's going to place upon employers. When you look at what he's gonna do to taxes, it's just absolutely frightening to think what the potential impact will be on our economy.

Slap taxes on corporations that leave the country. Go for it. Because it's still gonna cheaper than staying put here. Either that, or it'll just be cheaper to not even keep your business open period.

Total circular logic.
 
If you slap a tax on corporations that leave and they still leave, the government at least gets some money out of it.
 
And it's still theft.
 
So taxes are theft?

Cleo

Absolutely.

If you hate my guts for operating a successful business, and break into my business or home to steal my money it's theft. If you elect someone to do the same exact thing under the guise of the government to give it to you, it's still theft.
 
Absolutely.

If you hate my guts for operating a successful business, and break into my business or home to steal my money it's theft. If you elect someone to do the same exact thing under the guise of the government to give it to you, it's still theft.

Except taxes are the law.

The "taxes are theft" argument is, at its core, a rejection of the concept of law. If "taxes are theft," then law is H.L.A. Hart's "gunman situation writ large."

When the Cold War built up steam, the U.S. government replaced "May Day" with "Law Day," to contrast with the Communists, and to inform the American people about our traditions of liberty and justice. I guess it didn't work that well.

Cleo
 
No tax = no army and no law and order. Country falls to chaos and loses. I thought Hamilton had won the argument long ago?
 
No tax = no army and no law and order. Country falls to chaos and loses. I thought Hamilton had won the argument long ago?

Hamilton? I thought Hammurabi won that argument. :)

Cleo
 
I'm thinking of Eddie Izzard's line commenting about Americans:

"50 years ago? Nobody was alive!"

I don't hate Americans :p
 
I'm Cleo said:

If taxes are theft, therefore property must also be theft. Both property and taxation are enforced law.

Not only are taxes law, they are the law. It's the tax payer that pays the wages of the law enforcement, and as if in exchange, the tax payer receives enforcement of his or her rights as they are determined by the democratically elected government.
 
Top Bottom