While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[JohannaK]

Farewell!

 

[Thlayli]

I'm too tired to rebut everything, but the way an economic history professor explained the post-war economic boom to me was not in terms of taxation rates, but in terms of pent up private capital that was released after the relaxation of domestic spending quotas at the end of WWII.

Also, the top marginal tax rate (when varied between 25% and 95%) seems to not affect the GDP growth rate in either direction. Nor does it seem to affect federal revenues as a percentage of GDP. So if the only thing that it affects is quality of life, why not keep it low?

Though I get the sense that you're not really advocating soaking the rich as much as you are expanding the position of the middle class. But outside of straight-up giving middle class people money or other in-kind benefits, or creating a new entitlement, how are you going to help them? If you're arguing raising the marginal tax rates on the truly wealthy and lowering the tax burden on the middle class in a revenue-neutral way, I guess that's fine. But it won't affect wages.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily help middle-class people, unless you're presupposing that doing so will somehow cause employers to raise wages across the board. I'm curious to hear what solutions to this problem would be, not saying it in a polemical way.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm too tired to rebut everything, but the way an economic history professor explained the post-war economic boom to me was not in terms of taxation rates, but in terms of pent up private capital that was released after the relaxation of domestic spending quotas at the end of WWII.

What a ridiculous, terrible lie.

 

[Thlayli]

I'm referring to the end of rationing and the ability for American servicemen to spend their accumulated pay back home and stuff.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm referring to the end of rationing and the ability for American servicemen to spend their accumulated pay back home and stuff.

this is probably far more accurate a statement, but I'm not comfortable saying "Yes this is and only this is the primary cause for the postwar boom."

Even so, that's just another reason to wage the minimum wage.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm too tired to rebut everything, but the way an economic history professor explained the post-war economic boom to me was not in terms of taxation rates, but in terms of pent up private capital that was released after the relaxation of domestic spending quotas at the end of WWII.

lol

Yeah, "pent up private capital"... created by massive government Keynesian (war) spending that you were earlier in your (totally wrong) example of Japan both trying to claim to as an example of "trickle-down" while simultaneously calling it ineffectual. And surprise, surprise, on the back of that economic success it was possible to easily sustain high tax rates and nobody much whined that they were too good to be taxed at those rates.

So what you're really saying is, today's ultrarich are pathetic losers in comparison to their fathers and grandfathers who won WWII and then had the good grace to not whine about the station afforded them as a direct result of their nation's fortunes. Got it.

I'm referring to the end of rationing and the ability for American servicemen to spend their accumulated pay back home and stuff.

Yeah, that high WWII GI pay. That's what did it.

Also, the top marginal tax rate (when varied between 25% and 95%) seems to not affect the GDP growth rate in either direction. Nor does it seem to affect federal revenues as a percentage of GDP. So if the only thing that it affects is quality of life, why not keep it low?

Achievement Unlocked: Let Them Eat Cake (Fulfill Via Word or Deed All the Stereotypes Everyone Has About You Based on Your Opinions and Knowledge of Your Background)

Though I get the sense that you're not really advocating soaking the rich as much as you are expanding the position of the middle class. But outside of straight-up giving middle class people money or other in-kind benefits, or creating a new entitlement, how are you going to help them?

YO DAWG DID YOU SEE THAT ARTICLE THAT PROMPTED THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION ABOUT RAISING MINIMUM WAGE TO AN ACTUAL LIVABLE LEVEL NO I DON'T THINK YOU DID MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO READ THAT THEN OR SOMETHING

If you're arguing raising the marginal tax rates on the truly wealthy and lowering the tax burden on the middle class in a revenue-neutral way, I guess that's fine. But it won't affect wages.

Yeah, it's almost like this conversation was about wages before you threw up a smokescreen. To humor you, I'd be in favor of coupling a $15/hr minimum wage with a mincome pegged to roughly the current minimum wage. This would provide everyone with enough to not starve while still giving a heavy incentive for actually working, and since I know deep inside your brain you're screaming at the notion of the poor getting something for nothing, I would (admittedly, somewhat naively) view that as likely being enough to start heavily cutting if not eliminating a lot of social services such as food stamps and certain other programs, particularly if coupled with additional continued reforms in areas such as healthcare, housing, and education.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily help middle-class people, unless you're presupposing that doing so will somehow cause employers to raise wages across the board. I'm curious to hear what solutions to this problem would be, not saying it in a polemical way.

Yeah, because suddenly paying all the low-end service level jobs what a lot of places currently pay 4 year-degree holders as an intro-level salary would not necessarily require a readjustment in pay-scales! High school dropouts and college grads would just be paid the same! Totally. You nailed the problem in one.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Can we agree not to talk about economics here again, until the entire world economy collapses and everyone's ideas are proved invalid anyway??

 

[Masada]

Proves most people dead.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Can we agree not to talk about economics here again, until the entire world economy collapses and everyone's ideas are proved invalid anyway??

Let's talk about the Syrian Electronic Army instead, it's unnerving to watch these buffoons defend horrible people like Bashar-Al Assad .

 

[Tycho]

Off topic, I'vegot to hand it to my spearmen. They really will find a way to surmount obstacles placed in front of them.

 

[Symphony D.]

Can we agree not to talk about economics here again, until the entire world economy collapses and everyone's ideas are proved invalid anyway??

Hey Daftpanzer did you know that Homo sapiens sapiens is a normally tribal, violent, and aggressive species that, left to its own devices, will generally ensure that the cause of death for around 50% of its individuals will be murder, and that actually there's nothing inherently wrong or evil about that? Did you know that against this backdrop that statistically today is actually the safest time to be alive, and that tomorrow will be even safer?

 

[~Darkening~]

It's truly a special type of heartwarming to see that some things do not, after all, change with time ......In other words, 'ullo once more. Howzit?

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

Hey Daftpanzer did you know ... that the cause of death for around 50% of its individuals will be murder...

For those that live past the adolescence anyway.

 

[Gelion]

Hey Daftpanzer did you know that Homo sapiens sapiens is a normally tribal, violent, and aggressive species that, left to its own devices, will generally ensure that the cause of death for around 50% of its individuals will be murder, and that actually there's nothing inherently wrong or evil about that?

Sorry to interfere with the discussion, but I don't agree about murder being a normal part of human existence. Yes, animals kill for food or to eliminate competition and to quote Louis C.K. most life on earth ends kind of badly. However few species practice murder of their own kind and few practice cannibalism. Humans still do and they rarely kill other humans for food. So our inter-specie murders are mostly about competition. While nothing about that is inherently wrong or evil, the whole ideal of modern civilization is in eliminating pain, death and suffering. I don't think murder of half of the people around you should be a normal reality of a species blessed with some sort of cognitive conscience.

Did you know that against this backdrop that statistically today is actually the safest time to be alive, and that tomorrow will be even safer?

Also, I think that the belief in a better tomorrow is a purely subjective position, especially depending on which side of the 50% murder rate you end up in.

 

[Crezth]

I think modern civilization has no "ideal." It's just kind of happening, and we're all holding onto the reins vaguely, unsure if we should be glad to be along for the ride.

 

[Symphony D.]

Sorry to interfere with the discussion, but I don't agree about murder being a normal part of human existence.

Well you're wrong. Human societies have always engaged in war at every level of development from tribal societies on; i.e., since there have been Humans. Every tribe everywhere has warred, often continuously. We continue to do this, it's just our tribes are bigger, our violence more centralized, and overall as a percentage of deaths war is now much less common. Given war is ritualized/institutionalized murder in the name of some sociocultural or political end, and given Humans have always fought I don't see the problem with saying they've always murdered and claiming it's a default part of the Human condition. This seems pretty self-evident.

Also, I think that the belief in a better tomorrow is a purely subjective position, especially depending on which side of the 50% murder rate you end up in.

You're wrong about that too. The world has been getting continually safer since the dawn of civilization. Per capita, death by war is way down even compared to say, 300 years ago. Unfortunately Air Force Magazine requires an AFA membership to read online now, so only this small thumbnail is available to tell the tale, but it's pretty self-explanatory:

It's obviously not particularly detailed. I believe the vertical axis is percent of population (presumably global) killed in 0.5% increments (going up to 2.5%) and the horizontal axis is years in increments of 100, putting the left end of the chart at 1600 and the right end at 2000. It was making the case for nuclear weapons, but it still makes the point. Violent death by other means is also down. How much varies from place to place, sure. Now, that's bad news if you're an omnicidal sociopath, but otherwise it's pretty good news because 50,000 years ago when you were faced with more or less a coin flip you were as likely to wind up killed as killing.

Anyway, point is, most of the factors that have prompted this trend have to do with getting away from anarchy and the centralization of the capacity for violence. So if you want the system, man to crash and burn, economically, politically, or whatever, you're tacitly endorsing a return to the very kind of thing that gets lots and lots of people killed, because that's what people tend to do without systems. Murder.

For those that live past the adolescence anyway.

It was usually greater than 50%. This sums up a study on the matter: "On average, 57%, 64%, and 67% of children make it to 15 years among 'untouched' hunter-gatherers, forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers, respectively."

 

[Crezth]

Watching Symph 0wn nuubs has become my evening entertainment.

 

[Gelion]

Well you're wrong. Human societies have always engaged in war at every level of development from tribal societies on; i.e., since there have been Humans. Every tribe everywhere has warred, often continuously. We continue to do this, it's just our tribes are bigger, our violence more centralized, and overall as a percentage of deaths war is now much less common. Given war is ritualized/institutionalized murder in the name of some sociocultural or political end, and given Humans have always fought I don't see the problem with saying they've always murdered and claiming it's a default part of the Human condition. This seems pretty self-evident.

I am not wrong in what you are refuting. I've never claimed that there were no wars before civilization (come on, we both are a part of CFC and NES forums, this means some basic knowledge of human history for most members). The debate (as far as I read) started with Dafts phrase on economics. I doubt tribals had any concept of a global economy. That is precisely the reason why I think murder is not a necessity for humanity, we evolve.

Keeping that in mind, if the world economy collapses we are faced with much greater dangers than a frankish infantryman or a wild hunter faced - we have meddled with the world so much that we simply cannot let go of the processes we have started. Our weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical, precision weapons) are too powerful for us to be able to behave as if we were still in the area of melee weapons and to be "left to [our] own devices". An economy collapse might mean that we simply loose control. And this is at a stage where an intelligent species has potentially a possibility to divert asteroids from wiping out life as it possibly did 65 million years ago. While competition is natural for a human, and small scale wars will continue there's a huge danger in crossing the line.

You're wrong about that too. The world has been getting continually safer since the dawn of civilization. Per capita, death by war is way down even compared to say, 300 years ago. Unfortunately Air Force Magazine requires an AFA membership to read online now, so only this small thumbnail is available to tell the tale, but it's pretty self-explanatory:

It's obviously not particularly detailed. I believe the vertical axis is percent of population (presumably global) killed in 0.5% increments (going up to 2.5%) and the horizontal axis is years in increments of 100, putting the left end of the chart at 1600 and the right end at 2000. It was making the case for nuclear weapons, but it still makes the point. Violent death by other means is also down. How much varies from place to place, sure. Now, that's bad news if you're an omnicidal sociopath, but otherwise it's pretty good news because 50,000 years ago when you were faced with more or less a coin flip you were as likely to wind up killed as killing.

Again, I was not saying that. I thank you a lot for the statistics and I will definitely check out that book. The point here is the global collapse of order which will quickly both reduce our population in savage ways and mess up the statistics that you posted. If you somehow died in that "event" I don't think a 50% chance of death or 1% chance of death that actually got you will make much of a difference.

Anyway, point is, most of the factors that have prompted this trend have to do with getting away from anarchy and the centralization of the capacity for violence. So if you want the system, man to crash and burn, economically, politically, or whatever, you're tacitly endorsing a return to the very kind of thing that gets lots and lots of people killed, because that's what people tend to do without systems. Murder.

Agree with the trend and no, I do not want the man or the system to burn. That is precisely why the phrase "Homo sapiens is a normally tribal, violent, and aggressive species that, left to its own devices, will generally ensure that the cause of death for around 50% of its individuals will be murder, and that actually there's nothing inherently wrong or evil about that?" didn't sit well with me. The system as far as I can tell does provide the definition for what "wrong" and "evil" is. I guess I don't understand what you mean by those words. To me, the continued conflict and its escalation linked to the collapse of economy are both "wrong" and "evil" on many levels. We have higher stakes than the rest of the species.

Repeating, no I do not want the man or the system to burn. I would be however equally as upset if a part of that system were to burn in the name of "increasing the percentage" in that other part. Hence the subjective point of view.

 

[Daftpanzer]

@Symphony D., I do have respect for your intelligence and knowledge. However I believe you are choosing to see the world through a certain lens and its no surprise, from your viewpoint, all the evidence appears to support your view.

I think we're all guilty of doing the same, obviously. Which is kinda my point, and kinda why I'm unlikely to share your particular viewpoint no matter how hard you push it.

I think we both share a belief in the pragmatism and adaptability of our species. But for me, I think we're naturally far more predisposed towards a kind of leisurely status quo with other humans in our environment, and our violent urges kick in in the absence of that. Otherwise, once our basic needs are fulfilled, we seem to thrive psychologically on contributing and sharing with other people. The people I interact with day-to-day reinforce this opinion.

I don't think we're predisposed towards violence, as much as we often create a culture of violence or believe its in our interest to attack other people, or associate excitement with violence by dehumanising the 'other' - these are all in the realm of mental programming, which is very malleable. Mass warfare only seems to work because of the comradeship/honour/duty aspect, but there are many other ways to express that.

Getting back to your main point - I don't disagree with the advantages of modern civilization but I don't glorify its structure either. I'd call it an OK start. Which has less to do with belittling what has been built up, and more to do with realising potentials that exist. With billions of people now interconnected around the globe I think we're in for interesting times and we might just surprise ourselves at how 'human' we can be.

Belief systems, its all about belief systems.

 

[Masada]

"We don't like violence, except when we like violence"