6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 2/18/13 11:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The economic theory of capitalism relies upon a few ground rules that never exist in real life: consistent intelligent decision-making,
People are dumb, therefore we need a government elected and ran by said dumb people!
and equal power among bargainers.
People have unequal power, therefore we need an all powerful institution!
never mind that making such a instiution so powerful only magnifies the damage done when the dumb, greedy people running said instiution act dumb and greedy...
Those 4 republicans are helping secure every election for the democrats for the next few centuries.
Bye bye america.
The debt ceiling should be abolished entirely. It's always going to be raised, so we might as well let politicians spend as insanely as they want and crash the system sooner rather than later.
At 12/29/12 02:29 PM, Warforger wrote: it's the public sector that's been contributing the most to unemployment albeit at the state level.
We can't afford enough public sector jobs, so let's...spend more on existing public sector jobs?
Makes perfect sense.
It was fucking atrocious. The plotline was asinine and full of holes, the bad guy was more goofy than manacing, the bond-girl dies after 10 minutes and the final "home alone" action sequence was utterly anticlimactic.
This was not really a bond movie at all and the producers should be ashamed for suggesting that it is.
Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%-but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic-very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)
In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans-genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day-paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans-many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy-reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.
In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically-to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.
The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind.
The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy-including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives-were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.
For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.
Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.
It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.
It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy-a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.
In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.
At 12/1/12 02:29 PM, Revo357912 wrote: On that note, MSNBC is biased too, but at least they tone it down and have more rationality
you think some dodgy graphs are worse than deliberately concealing the race of a black guy in order to make him look like a crazy white guy
WOW
Funny how liberals only care when fox is biased.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwg-f3dqN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwg-f3dqN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwg-f3dqN4
Isn't it amazing how all these 'anti-redneck' liberal bitch and moan about 'tea-baggers' and how much better america would be without them...
...and then when the 'tea-baggers' actually talk about leaving america, there's such a gnashing of teeth and hurting of butt by these same liberals.
During segregation, blacks had lower unemployment of whites of the time, and much lower than the blacks of today. They also had much higher rates of business ownership.
Black children misbehave much, much more than non-black children in school, and so either hold the class back whilst they're being dealt with, or get left behind. Filling schools with black kids just makes white people take their kids out anyway, and so a quasi-segregation is natural anyway.
Blacks simply can't compete with whites and Asians. Having a separate black-nation for afro-americans means that all positions of power and all professional occupations will be occupied by blacks, and all businesses would be owned by blacks.
Blacks and whites have enormous differences in political views, so separatism would mean that we wouldn't have these voting wars each election that fuel racial hatred.
It seems strange that those who hate white people so much and lambast them for oppressing blacks would be so adamant in their support for forcing black people live in the same area and under the same economic/legal system as white people.
At 9/14/12 03:16 AM, Light wrote:At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
Did you actually click on the link? Of course they're dumb, gosh.
At 9/14/12 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote: The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today,
Um, it was greatest period of economic growth in American history
wages were fucking horrible and prices were horrible due to monopolies. Economic recessions today mean a couple of people are pissed and moving in with their parents, back during the Gilded Age economic recessions (and yes there were many) meant people starved to death. Oh yah and those wages? Yah say you make 40 $ a week, during a recession in the Gilded Age that would drop to 20$ per week, but during the next economic boom it would go up to 22$ per week. It also didn't match the cost of living either, so in order for people to have enough money often times the entire family had to go to work. Even then that still meant the majority of people lived in poverty (By the way during the "Roaring" 20's, 50% of Americans lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them).
Wages were terrible? America was basically a new country starting from scratch. Without the capital accumulation that takes centuries, of course wages aren't going to be good. The point is, the growth was enormous. That's what matters.
pro-tip; EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD SHITTY WAGES. That was life. Except, nowhere else were things improving as much as in america.
Seriously though, if the taxation adn regulartory structure that is in place was enforced back then, america would never have gotten off the ground in the first place and would be a third-world country. Yes, really, because the gilded age made america industrialised, which is what makes higher wages and better standards of living possible.
This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat.
This has nothing to do with "regulations". Because America was in the middle of economic DEVELOPMENT they didn't have the productivity that they do today and so would have starved if they didn't eat shit.
Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOT
a lot*
This is why you don't send your kids to public school.
In any case, the period of real wage increases of the poor during the gilded age has never been matched since. There are no absolutes in economics, only relatives, and relatively speaking, the poor never saw a greater rate of improvement after the gilded age.
more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.
This just means there was inequality, it does not mean that the lasseiz-faire system was not optimal.
So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.
I don't think you understand, the economy of today is only possible because of the gilded age.
NO COUNTRY was ever good right from the beginning. No system could have made live comparable to today during the gilded age without killing off most people and giving their resources to the ramining few, but this would have meant that there wouldn't have been economic development in the future.
I really don't understand how you don't get it that until the means of production are built up, you can't have modern standards of living. And it was precisely the guilded age that led to this building up.
The reason things are so much better now has nothing to do with regulations, but because of productivity. We can produce way, way more things now at much better quality and much lower cost because of centuries of capital investment.
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
At 9/14/12 01:13 AM, Warforger wrote: Perhaps if you read up on US History during a time called the "Gilded Age" you'd realize that regulations are necessary and probably why libertarians aren't taken very seriously.
You mean that period of time which saw one of the fastest rates of economic growth, real wages, and falling prices?
That period that built the foundation for the industrial american economy?
Oh gee look how much better we are nowadays! Lucky we have all those millions of pages of regulations! Otherwise there would be stagnating/falling real wages, huge corporations sheilded from competition and a shitty econo-oh wait.
At 6/30/12 04:41 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: And then they point out the factual, statistical, and logical inconsistencies of the study, those big bullies.
No they dont
God, you're so disingenuous. You're saying quite a bit more than that, and just a few lines later in THIS VERY POST, you say:
Only after you brought it up.
Speaking of which, IQ tests are bullshit and generally measure only a limited number of factors of intelligence which usually rely more on education than on innate mental capacity. Finding any robust conclusion from data of IQ differences in various demographics and races in America is therefore difficult, and lends itself to be misinterpreted.
So...it's just an ENORMOUS coincidence that East asians and ashkenazi jews have much higher than average IQs....and have also much higher than average incomes, wealth, savings rate much lower violent crime rates, and that there is a causal relationship between these data points. Oops.
LOOK AT HOW IRRELEVANT IQ IS LOL
If you want some actual science on the issue by people who understand it, read away.
So what's your source?
2 second google search later
http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295%2899%2900290-3 /abstract
Which makes sense considering black youths commit more crime than any other demographic (i.e. not blacks over 40).
"YOU SAID: A black neighbourhood would commit equal crime to a poor white neighbourhood."
I'd like to believe that you to have reading comprehension skills exceeding that of a 4th grader, but if you can't read those two sentences and notice that they say different things, then perhaps your teachers ought to hold you back a grade.
They're not meaningfully different. You're just being pedantic.
Get this into your skull: nobody is disputing that blacks are overrepresented in the crime statistics in America, the reasons WHY they are overrepresented is what matters.
I never brought up the reason. I said that black commit more crime and posted COC as proof.
You said that it was all bullshit because different factors affect crime, even though I never said anything about causes until you brought it up.
Oh, and by the way: "This report takes no position on causes of group differences in crime rates, except to point out that
the ones that are most commonly proposedâEU"poverty, unemployment, lack of educationâEU"are not satisfactory."
So, not only did I not bring up the causes of higher black crime, neither does the report.
If his opinions do not rub you the right way, then would you at least address the scientific studies that he cites? Are they also racist and wrong?
no he's a racist therefore invalid remember
And I'm sure that there are tons of racists out there who are some of the nicest darn people you'd ever meet. Doesn't make their views any less wrong or any less despicable.
If blacks are inherently different to other races, then they're inherently different. If they look at the data and draw conclusions, should they pretend that they didn't because it's "despicable" to challenge the egalitarian orthodoxy?
Having heard him lecture and having read many of his articles, I find your statement very humorous. Perhaps some examples of his hatred of white people?
UM the fucking link I posted which contained his rant over how happy his is white people are demographically dying off and will be a minority one day.
lol imagine if a white dude said that he is glad that there won't be any more blacks one day, he'd be called a fucking a nazi.
At 6/28/12 03:25 AM, constapatedape wrote: Most of its content is just an act, however the sheep that mindlessly believe it sadly are not one.
If you think MSNBC is any better, then you're an idiot.
At 6/29/12 06:01 AM, EisUndStahl wrote: Do you think it will start WW3?
At 6/29/12 02:34 PM, Earfetish wrote: Although they do intrude on my rights to indulge in unhealthy habits, such as taking drugs or selling sexual services, I see this as too intrusive and controlling and a further way for my 'elected' 'representatives' to further their power over the populace.
So, it's fine that people are forced to fund your healthcare by threat of imprisonment (or ultimately death, if they resist), but stopping people from behaving in certain ways that drive up the costs of said healthcare is "instrusive" and "controlling"?
Cool.
At 6/30/12 02:54 AM, Feoric wrote: we have the only for-profit lightly regulated private system in the world,
Lightly regulated
governmetn creates an insurance oligopoly in each state
is responsible for half of all healthcare spending and spends more % of GDP than any other country on earth
and by your own admission has strangled teh supply of medical professionals
wtf
and it's also one of the worst and IS the most expensive. The free market approach is clearly a failure.
ITS NOT A FREE MARKET YOU FUCKING RETARD
i never even tried to make that case.
Sigh...
"are people not buying insurance? how does that prove anything?"
however, it's entirely possible that central planning arrives at the same or a more efficient solution.
Wow, so you think communism can work
wow
"it's entirely possible that central planning arrives at the same or a more efficient solution."
jesus christ you're fucking daft
$100 means a lot more to the guy who needs it to buy life saving medicine for his pneumonia than the guy who's buying a third maserati.
Um, no. You can't quantify a person's values, and so it is literally impossible to say someone values something more than someone else
you can get involved in the market and pay for him to go see a doctor, but that's not inherently more efficient than paying a doctor to treat him
A voucher system would be far better, because medical services would be determined on teh absis of suppyl and demand, not bureaucrats in washngton just pulling decisions out of their asses.
"I prove that if markets are weak-form efficien
I don't accept teh efficient market hypothesis, but it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with austrian economics.
...okay? but there's nothing uniquely american about it that says corruption here would be more common than in any other nation. you're just assuming.
Corruption appears to be more rampant in america in other industries than other western nations, so there is every reason to assume healthcare would be no different.
because there's no oversight in deregulation. uhc is heavily regulated. are you being obtuse on purpose?
You said deregulation would lead to companies paying off poltiicians to get laws to suit them.
There's no reason why this wouldn't happen under UHC.
i'd like to think i unambiguously defined 'better.'
no
you cant think of any plausible scenario where america can afford uhc? even though i showed you that our federal revenue is low and tax rates at post-wwii historical lows? you can't fathom higher taxes to help pay for it?
Taxing 100% of the income of everyone who earns over $250,000 and all of the profits of teh fortune 500 companies would not cover the deficit.
If all of the nation's wealth could somehow be confiscated (without affecting its value), this would cover CURRENT spending for a grand total of 12 years.
Tax revenue is only going to decrease over the coming decades, and even if military spending cuts could be significant enough to matter, even left-wing UHC-supporting Obama has increased military spending, so I wouldn't count on that.
down the rabbit hole we go. if you don't like your insurance company, you don't have the luxury to just change insurance companies or change jobs. maybe if you're young and have no family you can, but these are not easy options by any means, and for most people it isnt even that simple. the barrier to change is too high compared to what's gained. if, hypothetically, my employer said, "no more health insurance", then i might consider finding another job since finding something in my field would mean moving to another state, possibly cross country, and good luck to anyone selling their house right now.
The only reason healthcare is supplied through employment is because of tax incentives set up by government, a non-free market force. A free market would see the end to this system
but the free market never can.
*actually did until government regulations fucked things up
why not take a look at the reams of health stats that say these insurance companies are overcharging and underdelivering and start a crusade to make them more efficient?
ITS NOT A FREE MARKET YOU STUPID CUNT
What part of "we should RETURN to a free market" do youy not get? The only way you can return to something is if you dont have it now!
why not start your own health insurance company?
Mainly because barriers to entry erected by government to protect the health insurance cartel (the same cartel which are cumming their pants over how much more money they will make because the ACA passed) make it way too difficult.
or pro-competition in the industry.
YOU are the only one opposed to that.
IMHO, i think you're a shitty capitalist if you look at such an incredibly inefficient system and applaud it - I thought that was the realm of communists?
Government is reponsible for half of all healthcare spending. It is not a free market.
AND I never fucking said I support ot you you fucking moron.
yeah, i don't know how many times i need to bring up the point of preventative care, so i guess just forget it if you're not going to bother addressing all of the thing i say.
BLACKS IN UHC COUNTRIES STILL HAVE WORSE HEALTH OUTCOMES
the free market will be controlling for that, coincidentally, when poors aren't able to afford visits to emergency rooms, which i'm also assuming why you're such an advocate of it. those damn blacks! always ruining america!
Insurance used to be cheaper in part because it was used only for emergencies, so more people were covered, and because there was teh kind of competition yo uare opposed to.
For everyday visits, doctors were cheap enough that most people could afford it, mainly because the government wasn't restricting the supply of medical professionals and and regulating everything.
At 6/30/12 02:59 AM, Feoric wrote: i'm assuming the reason why you're ignoring that part is because the free market would not be able to make that same guarantee.
You're an excellent advertisment against public education
1. You say america has worse health statistics than UHC countries
2. You say this is proof of UHC being better
3. I say that the statistics are due in part to the large number of blacks in america, who are more prone to diseases
4. "preventative care" is irrelevant, because all I'm doing is explaining the current US statistics
5. In any case, blacks still do far worse than whites in all UHC systems, with aboriginals in UHC australia performing worse than US blacks.
lmao, it was never ABOUT organic vegetables, it was about HEALTHY FOOD, and i used that as an example. are you really that thick?
If they have nothing to do with it, why bring them up?
lol, you didn't even read this, did you? this is a study done that claims to show that the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or weight in respects to women, not a comprehensive study done on the entire population.
Um, I kind of understand nutrition way better than you and am intimately acquainted with these studies.
Stanford ATOZ study shoes that high fat, low carb atkins diet best for weight and risk factors.
yeah, people from large corporations tend to get government jobs as advisors. so, what's your point?
JHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA wtf
do you think these corporate big wigs get government jobs to "serve the public" or something?
NO, they create regulations which favour their companies and stifle competition (hurting consumers).
you can bring a horse to water and can't make it drink, either.
That's not a refutation. That actually supports my point.
But what next? Will Mr Neanderthal-economcis tell me that runaway inflation actually isn't a bad thing?
At 6/29/12 01:40 PM, Feoric wrote: no, because america can't even go bankrupt. we're in charge of our own money supply.
You can't force people to accept its value.
At 6/29/12 04:55 PM, Warforger wrote: Uh yah? Do you think Liberals raised black people? Do you think they move in next to them to brainwash them? Because that is what you're implying.
Three words.
Public. School. System.
Uh ok? How does this change the fact that black people commit the same crimes as white people yet are convicted less?
I'm guessing you mean the other way around. In any case, the only time that occurs is with is drug "crimes", and that can be largely attributed to the behaviour of blacks (see my response to earfetish with the book excerpt posted).
The crime victimisation survey asks people who report violent/property crimes the colour of their attacker, and on this basis blacks ommit more violent/property crime.
Exactly
Erm, my point was that anti-white hate crime in under-reported. The fact that the rodney king was one of the most famous men in america suggests that there osn't a huge problem in the reporting of anti-black violence.
At 6/29/12 01:36 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: My apologies, forgot the link: http://www.timwise.org/2004/11/race-crime-and-sloppy-social-
science/
Sorry, Tim Wise is an insane anti-white racist and so his opinions don't count (isnt that how it works?).
I've actually met Jared taylor, and he is one of teh nicest people you're likely to meet.
He doesn't hate non-whites, he just believes biology explains racial differences and that whites are allowed to have racial interests the way non-whites do.
Tim Wise, though, really does hate white people.
At 6/29/12 01:14 PM, Earfetish wrote: You believe whites are inherently better and more evolved than blacks,
No. "Better" is meaningless term, as is "more evolved". The behaviour of blacks makes them better adapted to the hunter-gather lifestyle practised by their ancestors in africa, and the behaviours of whites/asians makes them better adapted to the agricultural listestyle practised by their ancestors in europe/asia.
Agriculture lowers peoples time preference, and makes them less likely to engage in clonflicts and confrontations (because Hunter gathers can fight and then leave, whereas if you piss someone off, they can destroy your crops) among other characteristics which are favoured by a industrial economy.
This book is excellent at explaining it and I highly recommend it.
How would you describe this viewpoint? Race realism? I'd call it racist and I would reckon most people would agree with me. Sorry if it's a forbidden word or whatever and but the way you have come across here certainly sounds racist. Would you describe yourself as not racist, and if not, why not?
I am "racist" as most people define it. Though, I'm not a racist in the sense that I hate all non-white individuals or treat them poorly based on their skin color.
The reason I don't identify as "racist" is because it tends to be a dsiqualifying term. It suggests a certain value judgement, or a hatred of certain peoples, and is used to shut down arguments.
Race realism is a descriptive view. It is a belief based on evidence (which may or may not be valid) that race exists and can be meanignfully used to explain differences in behaviour and socio-economic outcomes of the different races.
It is entirely possible to be a race realist and support diversity, immigration and multiculturalism and be friends with people other races. It would be weird, but its not contradictory.
Racism tends to mean hatred of other races. I don't hate non-whites, I just think we're better off apart. You can't begin to solve problems if you don't understand the world and the existence of race.
Segregated America saw blacks having a higher employment rate than whites at the time (and obviously far higher than blacks today), and far higher black business ownership.
Blacks just simply cannot, on aggregate, comepete with whites/asians in an industrial economy, because the adaptation to their ancesteral environment did not result in the traits required by an industrial economy the way those whose ancestors practised agriculture did. You can either have a serparate black economy, where all businesses are owned by blacks, all professionals are blacks, and all leaders are blacks.
Or you can have a dreadful system like modern america, where the racial differences manifest in economic inequality so that non-white/asians hate whites who they view as responsible, and non-W/A voting blocs vote themselves the resources of other racial groups, which leads to whites/asians hating the other racial groups, which just ends up in the current mess we have today.
At 6/29/12 01:34 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Ideology does not imply bias, prejudice does.
Um...anti-racists are prejudiced. the SPLC does not objectively look at studies with an open mind. If they see a study that draws oppconclusions different to their beleifs, they're going to assume its wrong straight off the bat.
A racist may dream I suppose, but no such racial differences exist. The crime rate is perfectly explainable without resorting to wild assumptions about racial inferiority.
Nobody said inferior. That is a total straw man.
It only matters if you have the evidence to back up your claims, and call me prejudiced, but when an espoused racist makes unfounded claims that race is the leading factor in determining crime rates when the facts do not support it, well, I'm not exactly surprised.
ALL I FUCKING SAID WAS THAT BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIME
The national crime victimisation surveys PROVE THIS CORRECT.
You're a fucking idiot.
Of course not. You don't care since you've already made up your mind that it's because blacks are biologically predisposed towards crime and violence.
No, I was once like you. Then I actually resaearched the topic. YOU'RE the one whose made up their mind.
No
I
didn't.
"I can gar-uhn-tee that you'd get just as many bites on that bike in any poor neighborhood, no matter the racial composition, 100% white or 100% black."
Can you stop being a lying shit for two seconds?
The report which has been thoroughly debunked.
Show me something that debunks the fact that blacks commit more crime. Everything you have linked to talks about why blacks commit more crime.
I like to stand by what I say, but standing by what you imagine in your head that I say is a bit more difficult.
"I can gar-uhn-tee that you'd get just as many bites on that bike in any poor neighborhood, no matter the racial composition, 100% white or 100% black."
This much I can say though; race is not a reliable predictor of criminal activity when socioeconomic factors are accounted for.
Uh...yes it is.
In any case, let's assume its not. Why are blacks poorer then? The link I posted above demonstrates that racial IQ differences are the result of genetics, and there is a strong correlation between low IQ and low income.
Which would mean, the ultimate cause of teh crime is still the inherent gentics of blacks.
At 6/29/12 02:49 AM, Feoric wrote: there is an alternative to a healthcare system that reigns in the costs of insurance, however.
Okay you are clearly retarded.
let me break this down for your miniscule brain.
1. In the past, you could either buy insurance/healthcare directly, or you could join a fraternal society to bargain with doctors.
2. The only reason you would have used a fraternal society is because you could get a better deal than dealing with doctors directly.
3. Thus, fraternal societies resulted in lower prices.
4. In the context of explaining the current costs of the healthcare system, there are no current alternative to insurance/direct purchase of services.
5. Therefore, the fact that people purchase insurance is not proof of anything teh way the use of fraternal societies is.
you have no idea what you're talking about.
No, you don't. It's called 'economic calculation', and I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you.
as far as corruption goes, again, like i said earlier, why is the united states more corrupt than the dozens of countries with uhc? you're asking me to prove a negative, i turn the question on to you: what evidence can you show me that corruption would be rampant in the united states with a form of uhc?
Because it's rampant in most other areas of the US government?
You made teh argument that it would occur if we deregulate insurance, and yet if we haveUHC is suddenly not a problem.
ah, great! glad we're on the same page. well then, what about the rest of the post? you prefer having for-profit companies even under those conditions? why or why not?
UHC may or may not be better than the current "mixed" healthcare. Depends on definition of better.
In any case, however, I oppose it because america cannot afford it.
i understand this. this is what i am (have been) saying: the problem with allowing interstate competition of insurance companies is that it causes an instant race to the bottom like you have with credit card issuers where most of them are based in either delaware or south dakota because those states have the most favorable laws.
Why is this a bad thing. The fact that compeition has increased from a handful to several hundred has to outwigh any possible negatives.
what then, do you propose, and how can you demonstrate to the people reading this thread that it will provide cheaper, better quality of care while insuring the most amount of people in the united states as opposed to a uhc system?
A return to free market healthcare, which resulted in demonstrably lower costs, more doctors, and better quality.
how is it irrelevant? you literally just said that america's overall health pales in comparison to other countries because they're obscured due to the large black population (unsubstantiated claim),
Controlling for carbohydrate intake, blacks suffer diabetes many multiples the rate of europeans. blacks have only had carbohydrates as a mjaor part of their deit for several hundred years, whilst europeans have for millenia.
Not. Fucking. Complicated.
i'm talking about potential numbers, as well.
Fucking hell. CURRENT FIGURES ARE ALL THAT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STATS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM. I'm explaining why america's figures are currently lower. Control for race, and america performs a lot better.
Blacks in UHC countries STILL HAVE WORSE HEALTH OUTCOMES THAN WHITES. Australian aborinines have the highest diabetes rate in the woirld despite receving more spending per person under our UHC system.
There's far less of them as a percentage of australian population and so they dont drag down our statistics.
which was to provide actual numbers showing evidence that proper nutrition and diet significantly reduces your chance of health complications. my argument is that a majority poor people don't get proper nutrition/diet.
This has nothing to do with organic vegetables.
high in fats,
it's why obesity is an idiosyncratic sign of poverty and malnutrition while in poorer countries obesity is more associated with wealth and good nutrition. you've yet to show me evidence that eating healthy is cheaper than eating poorly.
You havent' shown that it's more expensive.
think about it: it's federally regulated which means there will be federal oversight. there are departments in america that deal with government corruption.
At 6/28/12 11:09 PM, Feoric wrote: i've linked this before. and this. here's a new one.
Exactly? For prices to have been rising for so long...they must have been lower in the past.
well that's strange, because if you look at the charts above you you'll see the price rising steadily. are people not buying insurance? how does that probe anything?
Because there's no alternative to insurance.
In the past, you could either deal with doctors directly, or you could collectively bargain with your fraternal society. If fraternal societies didn't decrease prices, they wouldnt have been used.
anyway, collective bargaining is one of the main points of uhc,
Governments don't allocate resources on the basis of prices/supply and demand, and so essentially have to guess, meaning they can inherently never be as efficient as private actors seeking profit. Also, you're ignoring the effect of corruption.
you're so fixated on a "free market; price-is-capped-at-a-reasonable-market-determined-profit" mentality you're just completely overlooking the fact that is contradicted by observation of the private health insurance market in action,
NO IM NOT BECAUSE ITS NOT A FREE MARKET
jesus christ
in almost all state markets the tendency is towards oligopoly, with a small number of providers dominating the market
Which is precisely because tis not afree market. You can't buy insurance across state lines, thus companies only compete with a handful of providers instead of hundreds
the fact that the flaws that i've pointed out in the current state of health care in the united states iare happening at all is damning enough, too.
But UHC isn'tthe only alternative!
you're going to tell me preventive care makes no difference?
Fucking hell. I'm saying that america's health outcomes are worse than other countries in part because of the large black population. Whether or not proper preventative care would help or not is irrelevant because we're talking about current figures under the current healthcare system.
yeah, not refuting my sources with other sources but only with personal anecdotes is easier than actually debating.
What source?
By the way, poor/fat people nearly all drink copious amounts of soda, which is extremely fattening and causes diabetes.
Guess what's cheaper than drinking soda? DRINKING WATER!
well then you cant really speak for people living on food stamps and their budgets.
I live away from my home. Working for a year on minimum wage doesnt exctly set you up for life. My food budget is entirely comparable to people living on food stamps.
no, i said "you could easily get." i didn't say "they are."
Then they';re going to be spending more than a few dollars.
O____O because we'll have heavily regulated universal private care?
Read it agaon. You say we cant deregulate the inusrance industry because of corruption. And yet this magically isn't a problem when it comes to UHC. Why?
yeah, believe it or not, it's true.
TOTAL spending will be less, but government spending will be far more. There would have to enormous tax increase to capture the money previously spent on private healthcare to use in the UHC system.
so basically, in a private system, if you don't have enough money to pay your medical bills, "get fucked," or "die." if only the poor worked just a little bit harder, tsk. shame.
Fraternal societies. That's the point of them. And this didn't refute my point at all.
so, when the government is involved, it's suddenly horrible, but you don't seem phased by most american health insurance companies being publicly owned/traded, and therefore only give a shit about raising shareholder value
Politicians profit by unfairly using their monopoly privileges. private companies profit by providing a service to consumers, or by using politicians' monopoly privileges to hurt competitors.
the only real free market is the black market, look how pretty that is.
So a system the government is constantly trying to shut down is an example of why free markets dont work? Fucking hell you're stupid.
At 6/28/12 03:42 PM, naronic wrote: When the 3D printer hits homes money,
There are a large number of anti-counterfeiting technologies available, the technology for producing which is proprietary and cannot be easily reverse-engineered.
paintings
Valuablke paintings don't have value becasue they're one of a kind, it's because they're the original. The world's most famous paintings can be essentially perfectly copied, and yet this has no impact on the original's value.
If anything (assuimng it could be done), this is a wonderful thing because everyone can enjoy the beauty of a great painting without having to pay for it.
jewelry
These printers can't magically synthesise gold, so eithger they're fed real gold, in which case its "real" jewelery, or it used fake gold, which already occurs today.
At 6/28/12 11:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Actually, since forever, race-on-race crime has been occurring. Wait, the Conservatives are the ones who always say that it's the Liberals that always bring up race, but here's a Conservative paper criticizing how certain media outlets DON'T mention race. Hilarious. Is it only okay for them to omit race when it's white on black or what?
Liberals bring up race because the see all racial discrepancies as white people being racist, or any incident in which a black person is hurt or arrested or whatever as being a result of discrimination. THIS is what conservatives have a problem with. I haven't seen anything to suggest that they have a problem of race being brought up when something REALLY IS about race.
I mean, for example, the liberal media made the Trayvon Martin case about race, referring to Zimmerman as "white-hispanic", a term which is essentially never ever used, especially not if said persons are the victims in a certain situation. Zimemrman was portrayed as an evil racist, even though all evidence suggests that he is not racist at all.
As far as I'm concerned, race should never be mentioned regardless of who did it to whom.
Sounds nice, but I call bullshit. You really think race should be omitted if a white supremacist blows up a school full of black kids? Really?
Isn't there a name for this sort faulty reasoning? A occurs, then a B correlated to A occurs and all sorts of conclusions are drawn. Granted, I'm not denying any of this happened, it clearly has, but the way they report it reeks of what the Left does as well.
At 6/28/12 11:39 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Yes, I am questioning the reliability of your source,
Well SPLC clearly has an ideological agenda, so I question the reliability of your source.
Using the term "race realist" to describe yourself is a transparent attempt to rebrand racist opinion as something with a more intellectual ring to it.
Racist has inherently negative connotations. Whether or not tehre exists inherent racial differences is a matter of fact, not value. Believing that there are racial differences is not an inherently immoral thing; it is not a value judgement.
Assume for a moment that there undeniably exists sighnificant inherent racial differences. Does it still make one
It is a complete misnomer however, because none of the views espoused by so-called "race realists" are grounded in reality.
With all due respect (which is very little), I don't think you understand the subject enough to make such a judgement.
I'd trust an admitted racist to conduct an unbiased study about race about as much as I'd trust a snake-oil salesman to conduct an unbiased study about the utility of his wares.
So racist = too biased to make "racist" claims
Anti-racist = unbiassed, can make anti-racist claims
I am not denying that African Americans are overrepresented in the crime statistics, but the answer as to WHY they are overrepresented,
I never brought that up.
thinking that it is because of their inferior biology demonstrates to me a simplicity of mind that borders on retardation.
Average testosterone levels in males: Blacks>Whites>Asians
Amount of per capita violent crime: Blacks.Whites>Asians
wow, so retarded, right?
By the way, Jared Taylor is a graduate of Yale University and Institut d'Ão/ootudes Politiques de Paris. You might think he's wrong, but "retarded"? No.
I'm not saying that there is any one factor that you can point towards to explain the equation of crime rates,
YOU SAID: A black neighbourhood would commit equal crime to a poor white neighbourhood.
The report I posted shows that this is not true.
Do you, or do you not still stand by your statement that a black neighbourhood would commit no more crime than a poor white neighbourhood?
but I can tell you with certainty that biology has very little room in that equation.
You can't be certain because you don't know enough about the subject.
