Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: kenpitts on 19 Dec 2009 13:12 On Dec 18, 11:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: > > > Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in > > circulation... is it? > > Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of > capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. > Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are > more robust, with more competition and fewer single points > of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most > efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number > of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up > with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) > > Americans, for all their puritanism about most other > deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a > sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my > idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say > that there's a good reason. There's a difference between > building financial security for one's family and > accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn > to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, > we're going to have these problems. "accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, we're going to have these problems." Part of what happens in this country is incentive. Motivation to build a better mouse trap. Motivation to get that medical school specialty. Motivation to start a company that earns lots and lots of income and provides jobs. The moivation is in the form of money. Here is what happens when a person with money ("it takes money to make money") invests that money in a new company. We have heard that small business is the engine that makes our country go, right? Summer of 2007, a friend of mine who is a multi-millionaire founded a technology (generic for these purposes) firm. It required money to get this off the ground (Was it "hoarded"?) My wife was one of the first three employees. What was the result of that? My friend is seeing return on his initial investment. His firm is building value and equity - ie market share. And (pay attention here), the company now employs over 50 people, many of which are wage earners at the lower end of the food chain. Also further up the food chain - my wife is a degreed engineer. The company provides benefits that our govt is currently so willing to mortgage our future over. I stand by my philosophy - good things happen when affluent people get to keep what they earn. We see in the news every day that the government makes bad decisions with our money that they have taken from us in the form of taxes. The alluent are not digging holes on their estates and burying coffee cans full of cash. We know what to do with our money a lot better than idiots like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Ken
From: kenpitts on 19 Dec 2009 13:36 On Dec 18, 9:49 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > On 2009-12-08 12:16:14 -0500, Kev <zipplewr...(a)gmail.com> said: > > > > > > > Okay, so a broken clock is right twice a day. But the question does > > have to be asked, was Tiger's behavior, much of which Pitts found so > > objectionable, and indication of a larger attitude problem? Was his > > on course out burst a "firery competitor", or a "self possess jock"? > > Was his intense interest in privacy, and distance from fans and media > > figure stuck living in the lime light, or a guy who wanted to live in > > a different world with different rules? Johnny Miller, not my > > favorite guy, once said that he never thought he got an honest answer > > out of Tiger. He also complained that he didn't think Tiger showed > > HIM enough respect. Is this Johnny's problem or does Tiger divide the > > world into "those worthy and those not" and one might be surprised at > > whom is on which list? > > > The bottom line is was Tiger an obnoxious jerk all along and we > > didn't want to see it? Or is he just another flawed human that was > > able to cover his flaws from the public... for a while? > > I don't recall anyone ever saying he wasn't an obnoxious jerk all along. > > All we were saying was that we were able to separate the person from > the performance, and we admired the performance. > > The fact that a particular person was responsible for that performance > only served to raise our interest in him...but only as a performer. A > remarkable performer. > > I don't recall anyone here ever offering to have him over to the house > for dinner...or to date their daughter...or to entrust him with their > investments. > > Ken was simply unable to separate the man from the performance. A > typical reaction of a simpleton incapable of complex thinking. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Why do you always have to insult me? If I was what you say, how could I have survived (even excelled) in the world of IT for over 30 years? Cite the post where I have run down his performance since the very beginning. His record speaks for itself. My problem has always been this kind of stuff. http://www.texnews.com/tiger/tongue0618.html http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4446797&name=sobel_jason http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4347419 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/specials/us_open/2005/06/17/woods.round2.ap/index.html http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Woods-launches-swearing-outburst-at.3912862.jp Ben Johnson performed brilliantly. He was a cheater. Barry Bonds performed brilliantly. A cheater. Tiger Woods performed brilliantly. Foul mouthed, angry, equipment abusing womanizer. You don't give me any credit at all to think I cannot separate the two. Ken
From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:08 dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM: > On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: >> >>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in >>> circulation... is it? >> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of >> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. >> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are >> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points >> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most >> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number >> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up >> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) >> >> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other >> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a >> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my >> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say >> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between >> building financial security for one's family and >> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn >> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, >> we're going to have these problems. > > It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more > than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc). This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who actually *have* that money dangling it in front of the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit" whispered in their ears. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:09 BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 8:57 AM: > In article <3f22b437-a10e-4c68-ade9- > 0f3bb341d67e(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu > says... >> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: >>> >>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in >>>> circulation... is it? >>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of >>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. >>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are >>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points >>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most >>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number >>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up >>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) >>> >>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other >>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a >>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my >>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say >>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between >>> building financial security for one's family and >>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn >>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, >>> we're going to have these problems. >> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more >> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc). Seems >> opposite of hoarding? > > I think Bellomy's flawed line of reasoning about "hoarding" money is > funny. Nobody hoards money. The BAR defense: "Greed is a myth." That's some world-class denial right there. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:14
kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM: > On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: >> >>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>, >>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: >>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top >>>>> 10% pays over 70%? >>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. >>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." >>>> cb >>> I think you should both supply some actual figures... >> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement >> with another. >> >> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the >> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per >> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly >> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing >> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local >> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians >> don't count those. >> >> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless. >> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the >> rich, does not target any particular group of people. >> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful >> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who >> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to >> hoard. Pretty simple. >> >> cb >> >> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html > > "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;" > > How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your > employer. There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't get any more regressive than that. BTW, my email address is the same as before. chris at goodshow dot net cb |