From: Chris Bellomy on
kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM:
> 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.

Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things
for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end
up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933.

The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be
curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how
it is.

cb
From: BAR on
In article <d6udndvwh7PS9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> 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."

You are too funny. Since when is greed against the law?

> That's some world-class denial right there.

Fight on mighty class warrior!
From: kenpitts on
On Dec 19, 6:14 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That amount continuously goes up. I can remember one yearI burst thru
by making about $50K.

Ken
From: BAR on
In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> 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.

I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen
the lending laws. Please talk to your progressive brethren about the
problems they caused to the economy of the USA.




From: BAR on
In article <d6udndTwh7N58bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM:
> > 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.
>
> Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things
> for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end
> up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933.
>
> The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be
> curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how
> it is.

Fight on mighty class warrior.