OT The good example.

[theget]

"A South Florida man has willed his historic house worth $1 million to
the U.S. government to help eliminate the country's growing debt."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9388609-florida-man-wills-1-million-house-to-uncle-sam

[David Johnston]

Yes, good examples that won't be followed are so useful, aren't they?

[theget]

On Dec 14, 2:01 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 9:20 AM, theget wrote:
>
> > "A South Florida man has willed his historic house worth $1 million to
> > the U.S. government to help eliminate the country's growing debt."
>

> >http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9388609-florida-man-will...

>
> Yes, good examples that won't be followed are so useful, aren't they?

That it won't be followed is a useful lesson too.

[Alan Pollock]

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

IMO, Mr Davidson is an idiot of the highest order.

The man's never heard of gummint waste and gummint pork. That money could go
anywhere and will probably get sucked down one of the many gummint drain-holes
already in place.

He could have made someone (or a bunch of folks) very happy by giving them a
house, money. Doesn't need to be a relative, could just be some of the
deserving in his community. Or perhaps a good local charity, one he knows
actually does good.

Oh sure, he could have done what he wished with his own scratch, no disputing
that. But in judging his deed, I can only conclude that the man was either non
compos mentis, or very very lazy. Nex

[Tony Harding]

Am I old fashioned or naive to believe the guy can do what he wants with
his property (within the law, of course) and should be able to as well?

Tony

[Alan Pollock]

I just said that in the last paragraph. Nex

[Tony Harding]

So you did, hasty reading on my part, my bad. You were pretty critical
of the guy, however.

OTOH, nice to see some agreement here.

[Alan Pollock]

Heh.

And yes I am critical of the bugger. A man of indiscriminate taste. Nex

[theget]

Then I wonder what opinion you have of this well known fellow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/impressed-delighted-warren-buffett-matches-204656439.html

[Alan Pollock]

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

I think Mr Buffet is playing with politics and perceptions here. A man with
gazillions of dollars giving chicken feed to the gummint to make a polpoint is
a hero? No. If Mr Buffet gives generously to his community, good man. No? He
can do better. Nex

[theget]

On Feb 5, 1:35 am, Alan Pollock <n...@nopanix.com> wrote:
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 17 2011, 2:04?am, Alan Pollock <n...@nopanix.com> wrote:
> > > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 2:01?pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 12/14/2011 9:20 AM, theget wrote:
>
> > > > > > "A South Florida man has willed his historic house worth $1 million to
> > > > > > the U.S. government to help eliminate the country's growing debt."
>
> > > > > >http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9388609-florida-man-will...
>
> > > > > Yes, good examples that won't be followed are so useful, aren't they?
> > > > That it won't be followed is a useful lesson too.
>
> > > IMO, Mr Davidson is an idiot of the highest order.
>
> > > The man's never heard of gummint waste and gummint pork. That money could go
> > > anywhere and will probably get sucked down one of the many gummint drain-holes
> > > already in place.
>
> > > He could have made someone (or a bunch of folks) very happy by giving them a
> > > house, money. Doesn't need to be a relative, could just be some of the
> > > deserving in his community. Or perhaps a good local charity, one he knows
> > > actually does good.
>
> > > Oh sure, he could have done what he wished with his own scratch, no disputing
> > > that. But in judging his deed, I can only conclude that the man was either non
> > > compos mentis, or very very lazy. Nex
> > Then I wonder what opinion you have of this well known fellow.

> >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/impressed-delighted-warren-buffett-matc...

>
> I think Mr Buffet is playing with politics and perceptions here. A man with
> gazillions of dollars giving chicken feed to the gummint to make a polpoint is
> a hero? No. If Mr Buffet gives generously to his community, good man. No? He
> can do better. Nex

Buffet? Playing games? When he pays 15% and his secretary 35%? Does
that really mean that she pays more? And that's not a tax on the same
thing is it?

35%? How much money does a poor secretary have to gross before she's
in that bracket? Hmmm...

But that's ok. Buffet says it's not fair.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/

How about we all pay less? I think that would be fair. And my
definition of fair is objective.

[David Johnston]

Also catastrophic.



>

[Martin Edwards]

I pay little income tax because I have a low income. I pay the same VAT
(sales tax) on a £1 bar of chocolate as ex-Sir Fred Goodwin, and I
would pay the same on a car if I had one. 7.5% would be legal under
European law. Successive British governments have chosen to take to the
poor and give to the rich.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[theget]

> >>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-s...

>
> >> How about we all pay less? I think that would be fair.
>
> > Also catastrophic.
>
> I pay little income tax because I have a low income.  I pay the same VAT
> (sales tax) on a £1 bar of chocolate as  ex-Sir Fred Goodwin, and I
> would pay the same on a car if I had one.  7.5% would be legal under
> European law.  Successive British governments have chosen to take to the
> poor and give to the rich.

If that rich guy is paying the same tax as you do, what is the British
Government giving him?

[theget]

> >http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-s...

>
> > How about we all pay less?  I think that would be fair.
>
> Also catastrophic.

Let's spend less too. Because if we keep going this way it will be
catastrophic. Or so I think.

[David Johnston]

On 2/7/2012 4:10 PM, theget wrote:

>>> But that's ok. Buffet says it's not fair.
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-s...
>>
>>> How about we all pay less? I think that would be fair.
>>
>> Also catastrophic.
>
> Let's spend less too.

Not actually possible without more money.

[Martin Edwards]

Lower tax in proportion to his income.

[theget]

Would a flat tax, ie a flat percentage paid by everyone on all income
no matter how small well, say anything in excess of £10 and no matter
the source -- Thanks for the birthday present granny! -- be acceptable
to you?

[theget]

Sounds like global warming makes for colder weather. Possible, but
needs more explanation please.

[David Johnston]

On 2/8/2012 9:25 AM, theget wrote:

>>> If that rich guy is paying the same tax as you do, what is the British
>>> Government giving him?
>>
>> Lower tax in proportion to his income.
>
> Would a flat tax, ie a flat percentage paid by everyone on all income
> no matter how small well, say anything in excess of £10 and no matter
> the source -- Thanks for the birthday present granny! -- be acceptable
> to you?
>
>
>

That would be a wonderful way to crush the poor.

[David Johnston]

On 2/8/2012 9:25 AM, theget wrote:

At the moment the three major financial burdens are military
expenditures, "social safety net" and actual debt servicing. Remove the
social safety net and you need to increase military expenditures to
suppress the masses, at least until they get too weak from starvation to
cause trouble. No party is going to agree to more than a modest
reduction in the military. There are other places where services can be
(and are being) reduced or withdrawn but in the end the debt will have
to be paid down to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.
That will take more money.

[theget]

Depends on the percentage. Besides, everyone ought to have some skin
in the game.

[David Johnston]

Everyone does. That's sales tax.

[theget]

On Feb 8, 12:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 9:25 AM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 9:10 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2012 4:10 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>> But that's ok.  Buffet says it's not fair.
> >>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-s...
>
> >>>>> How about we all pay less?  I think that would be fair.
>
> >>>> Also catastrophic.
>
> >>> Let's spend less too.
>
> >> Not actually possible without more money.
>
> > Sounds like global warming makes for colder weather.  Possible, but
> > needs more explanation please.
>
> At the moment the three major financial burdens are military
> expenditures, "social safety net" and actual debt servicing.

Are you including Obamacare in the SSN or is that a fourth major
burden to be added?

> Remove the
> social safety net and you need to increase military expenditures to
> suppress the masses, at least until they get too weak from starvation to
> cause trouble.

Maybe it would be better to run an economy where a "SSN" isn't
required. Or not so much of it.

To me the SSN seems self perpetuating. At least if I buy lefty
arguments about a lack of upward and downward social mobility. Spend
more on people who are encouraged to not find a means to support
themselves and they'll do what people do, and keep looking for that
hand out.

Besides which, are we counting things like Solyndra in our major
financial burdens? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/politics/house-panel-examines-solyndras-restructuring.html

> No party is going to agree to more than a modest
> reduction in the military.  There are other places where services can be
> (and are being) reduced or withdrawn but in the end the debt will have
> to be paid down

I think the idea that the debt has to be paid down is wishful
thinking. There is nothing that has to happen.

> to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.

But Hopey McChange just asked for more money to give to people who are
below water. Right? I think I heard that. So when will it hit
bottom? Nah. We've got plenty of time to rack up a debt that amounts
to real money. Forget the piddling, well what is it? Fourteen
trillion dollars we owe now. Or is that just the principle? I keep
forgetting. Not that I can afford to pay anyway.

>   That will take more money.

More money? From where? Is Germany going to bail us out too?

BTW, since we're at it, I'd like to know. What's your definition of
money?

[David Johnston]

On 2/8/2012 11:32 AM, theget wrote:

>> to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.
>
> But Hopey McChange just asked for more money to give to people who are
> below water. Right? I think I heard that. So when will it hit
> bottom?

Bush's intervention made the deflation of the market into a more gradual
descent rather than a crash. That doesn't mean that the market won't
hit bottom.

>
>> That will take more money.
>
> More money? From where?

From taxation. The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
taxes at some point. The problem is two fold. Dealing with the
political obstacles to that, and picking the right time to do it.

[theget]

There's a federal sales tax? Uh-oh. I don't think I paid it. Now
the IRS is going to get me.

[theget]

On Feb 8, 2:03 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 11:32 AM, theget wrote:
>
> >>   to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.
>
> > But Hopey McChange just asked for more money to give to people who are
> > below water.  Right? I think I heard that.  So when will it hit
> > bottom?
>
> Bush's intervention made the deflation of the market into a more gradual
> descent rather than a crash.  That doesn't mean that the market won't
> hit bottom.

Bush's intervention? In real estate? I'm not quite sure what you're
getting at. Are you speaking of the inflation that Bush and Obama
probably caused with their "stimulus"?

> >>    That will take more money.
>
> > More money?  From where?
>
>  From taxation.

You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?

> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
> taxes at some point.

"Has to"? Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
mean anything?

And what makes you think either of those might happen?

> The problem is two fold.  Dealing with the
> political obstacles to that, and picking the right time to do it.

Sounds like you're going to need a quote from Jefferson about the
blood of patriots, a mop and a strong stomach. Good luck with that.

[David Johnston]

On 2/8/2012 2:42 PM, theget wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:03 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2012 11:32 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>> to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.
>>
>>> But Hopey McChange just asked for more money to give to people who are
>>> below water. Right? I think I heard that. So when will it hit
>>> bottom?
>>
>> Bush's intervention made the deflation of the market into a more gradual
>> descent rather than a crash. That doesn't mean that the market won't
>> hit bottom.
>
> Bush's intervention? In real estate?

In banking.

>> From taxation.
>
> You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?

After, not when.

>
>
>> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
>> taxes at some point.
>
> "Has to"? Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
> mean anything?

If you did, you were wrong.

>
> And what makes you think either of those might happen?

Either it happens, or the United States collapses which will in itself
reduce spending and increase taxes.

[theget]

On Feb 8, 4:54 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 2:42 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 2:03 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2012 11:32 AM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>    to some extent once the real estate market hits bottom.
>
> >>> But Hopey McChange just asked for more money to give to people who are
> >>> below water.  Right? I think I heard that.  So when will it hit
> >>> bottom?
>
> >> Bush's intervention made the deflation of the market into a more gradual
> >> descent rather than a crash.  That doesn't mean that the market won't
> >> hit bottom.
>
> > Bush's intervention?  In real estate?
>
> In banking.
>
> >>   From taxation.
>
> > You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?
>
> After, not when.

Who is going to pay the taxes?

>
>
>
> >> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
> >> taxes at some point.
>
> > "Has to"?  Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
> > mean anything?
>
> If you did, you were wrong.

Why was I wrong? Why does something have to happen? What physical
law requires that something you say "has to"? What stops something
else from being "has to"?

> > And what makes you think either of those might happen?
>
> Either it happens, or the United States collapses which will in itself
> reduce spending and increase taxes.

Now I am almost totally confused. Ok, I understand that if -- or
should that be when -- the US collapses spending will be reduced, but
how will taxes, and remember, our precondition is that the US has
collapsed, so how, how will taxes increase? And how will they, under
a collapsed US, be collected? And if they aren't collected, then how
are they taxes?

Or will there be another taxing authority that will increase taxes?

Hmmm.... I guess this is a good thing then,
http://www.redstate.com/jonmcclellan/2012/02/08/rahm-emanuel-writes-check-to-2nd-amendment-foundation/
That'll make it harder for some war-lord to try to get money.

Guns make freedom.

[David Johnston]

On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, theget wrote:

>>
>>>> From taxation.
>>
>>> You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?
>>
>> After, not when.
>
> Who is going to pay the taxes?

The people who have the money. You do know that tax rates are lower now
than any time after the Great Depression, right?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
>>>> taxes at some point.
>>
>>> "Has to"? Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
>>> mean anything?
>>
>> If you did, you were wrong.
>
> Why was I wrong? Why does something have to happen?

Because the alternative is unacceptable.

>>> And what makes you think either of those might happen?
>>
>> Either it happens, or the United States collapses which will in itself
>> reduce spending and increase taxes.
>
> Now I am almost totally confused. Ok, I understand that if -- or
> should that be when -- the US collapses spending will be reduced, but
> how will taxes, and remember, our precondition is that the US has

> collapsed, so how, how will taxes increase?And how will they, under

> a collapsed US, be collected? And if they aren't collected, then how
> are they taxes?
>
> Or will there be another taxing authority that will increase taxes?

Of course. There's always another taxing authority.

>
> Hmmm.... I guess this is a good thing then,
> http://www.redstate.com/jonmcclellan/2012/02/08/rahm-emanuel-writes-check-to-2nd-amendment-foundation/
> That'll make it harder for some war-lord to try to get money.

No it won't. It'll make it easier for him to equip his men.

>
> Guns make freedom.

Show me an example of that actually happening. And no, not the American
Revolution. The _first_ thing the United States did after the Revolution
was to put down another tax revolt and form a more centralized
government to deal with the next one.

[Martin Edwards]

No, Commie mad dogs like me want a graduated income tax, which we do
have, but it is not steep enough. Ah, the seventies! That noted rebel
Mick Jagger left the country because they taxed him too much. And
tonight on poor bastards....................

[Martin Edwards]

Under "free" market economics, most get skinned, while a few have piles
of the stuff. This would never be tolerated in the Trobriand Islands.
What a long, strange trip it's been.

[theget]

On Feb 8, 10:22 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>>    From taxation.
>
> >>> You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?
>
> >> After, not when.
>
> > Who is going to pay the taxes?
>
> The people who have the money.  You do know that tax rates are lower now
> than any time after the Great Depression, right?

If they have that much money they may leave the country. China,
Germany, some small island with cool breezes and a more stable
government.

> >>>> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
> >>>> taxes at some point.
>
> >>> "Has to"?  Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
> >>> mean anything?
>
> >> If you did, you were wrong.
>
> > Why was I wrong?  Why does something have to happen?
>
> Because the alternative is unacceptable.

I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking. Maybe in a place like Germany
where they fear a repeat of inflation. But in the States we think we
have a Thor given right to a high standard of living and the mechanics
of the economy....? Phfft... Don't bother us with those details.
There'll always be money for us, we're the USA. USA! USA! And we can
always print more, right? And even if we can't do that the rich will
be happy to give us whatever we want. Because we're nice and we
deserve to be happy.

> Of course.  There's always another taxing authority.

There's always someone who wants to be a taxing authority. There's
not always money to tax.

It's like those places that declare a right to food. They neglect
step one: Farmers.

> > Guns make freedom.
>
> Show me an example of that actually happening.  And no, not the American
> Revolution. The _first_ thing the United States did after the Revolution
> was to put down another tax revolt and form a more centralized
> government to deal with the next one.

Liberty then?

[theget]

On Feb 9, 2:54 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> No, Commie mad dogs

Repetition. I like repetition.

> like me want a graduated income tax, which we do
> have, but it is not steep enough. Ah, the seventies!  That noted rebel
> Mick Jagger left the country because they taxed him too much.  And
> tonight on poor bastards....................

What would be right slope for that graduated income tax?

[theget]

On Feb 9, 2:57 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Under "free" market economics, most get skinned, while a few have piles
> of the stuff.

I like that you put free in quotes. It's where it belongs. We not
only have a mixed economy, but the fix appears to be in. Take a look
at how Solyndra is being resolved.

> This would never be tolerated in the Trobriand Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand_Islands
"The Trobrianders practice many traditional magic spells."

> What a long, strange trip it's been.

Oh goody. Another trip. Where are we going?

I sometimes think about Spam Island. Sounds like there would be
pirates. I mean movie type pirates. Not the real kind. Movie comedy
pirates. Like Bob Hope. Arrgh matey, raise the anchor, we sail on the
tide.

http://travelingluck.com/Oceania/Kiribati/Kiribati%20%28general%29/_4030896_Spam%20Island.html

[David Johnston]

On 2/9/2012 9:57 AM, theget wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:22 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> From taxation.
>>
>>>>> You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?
>>
>>>> After, not when.
>>
>>> Who is going to pay the taxes?
>>
>> The people who have the money. You do know that tax rates are lower now
>> than any time after the Great Depression, right?
>
> If they have that much money they may leave the country. China,
> Germany,

Germany's taxes are considerably higher than those of the United States.
Those who go to China will find that there are some significant
downsides to becoming a Chinese citizen.

some small island with cool breezes and a more stable
> government.

Are there any small islands with a more stable government than the
United States?

>
>
>>>>>> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
>>>>>> taxes at some point.
>>
>>>>> "Has to"? Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
>>>>> mean anything?
>>
>>>> If you did, you were wrong.
>>
>>> Why was I wrong? Why does something have to happen?
>>
>> Because the alternative is unacceptable.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking. Maybe in a place like Germany
> where they fear a repeat of inflation. But in the States we think we
> have a Thor given right to a high standard of living and the mechanics
> of the economy....?

That is a short term analysis.

>
>
>> Of course. There's always another taxing authority.
>
> There's always someone who wants to be a taxing authority. There's
> not always money to tax.

Sure there is.

>>> Guns make freedom.
>>
>> Show me an example of that actually happening. And no, not the American
>> Revolution. The _first_ thing the United States did after the Revolution
>> was to put down another tax revolt and form a more centralized
>> government to deal with the next one.
>
> Liberty then?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/freedom


>
>

[Martin Edwards]

I haven't a firm view, but there are quite a few doing the rounds here.

[theget]

On Feb 9, 12:17 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 9:57 AM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 10:22 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>>>     From taxation.
>
> >>>>> You mean when the market hits bottom there'll be more taxation?
>
> >>>> After, not when.
>
> >>> Who is going to pay the taxes?
>
> >> The people who have the money.  You do know that tax rates are lower now
> >> than any time after the Great Depression, right?
>
> > If they have that much money they may leave the country.  China,
> > Germany,
>
> Germany's taxes are considerably higher than those of the United States.
>   Those who go to China will find that there are some significant
> downsides to becoming a Chinese citizen.
>
> some small island with cool breezes and a more stable
>
> > government.
>
> Are there any small islands with a more stable government than the
> United States?

Weren't we speaking of the collapse of the United States?

> >>>>>> The United States has to both reduce spending and raise
> >>>>>> taxes at some point.
>
> >>>>> "Has to"?  Haven't I already told you that "has to" doesn't really
> >>>>> mean anything?
>
> >>>> If you did, you were wrong.
>
> >>> Why was I wrong?  Why does something have to happen?
>
> >> Because the alternative is unacceptable.
>
> > I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking.  Maybe in a place like Germany
> > where they fear a repeat of inflation.  But in the States we think we
> > have a Thor given right to a high standard of living and the mechanics
> > of the economy....?
>
> That is a short term analysis.

Thinking that something won't happen because it is "unacceptable"
isn't any sort of analysis.

[theget]

On Feb 10, 9:11 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 16:58, theget wrote:> On Feb 9, 2:54 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> >> No, Commie mad dogs
>
> > Repetition. I like repetition.
>
> >> like me want a graduated income tax, which we do
> >> have, but it is not steep enough. Ah, the seventies!  That noted rebel
> >> Mick Jagger left the country because they taxed him too much.  And
> >> tonight on poor bastards....................
>
> > What would be right slope for that graduated income tax?
>
> I haven't a firm view, but there are quite a few doing the rounds here.

I'm sure there are. Many people have opinions.


BTW, I haven't read this but I've read some interesting things about
it. Have you heard about this?
http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1399.pdf

[David Johnston]

You asked me why something has to happen. The answer to that vague
question is that something has to happen when the alternative can't be
accepted. Sooner or later the United States government will be faced
with a situation where it will have to cut back and raise taxes or be
destroyed. And if it is destroyed, then the successor to it will cut
back and raise taxes.

[theget]

On Feb 10, 3:34 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 12:16 PM, theget wrote:

> > Thinking that something won't happen because it is "unacceptable"
> > isn't any sort of analysis.
>
> You asked me why something has to happen.  The answer to that vague
> question is that something has to happen when the alternative can't be
> accepted.

I doubt the truth of that statement.

> Sooner or later the United States government will be faced
> with a situation where it will have to cut back and raise taxes or be
> destroyed.

Years ago I saw a news story about NYC. Liberals wanted the poor to
have housing. Conservatives didn't want the government to pay for
permanent housing for the poor. Result: The poor were housed in
upscale hotels. The story was about who should clean the hotel
rooms. The poor claimed that the hotels were being paid for the room
and that should include room service. The hotels claimed that they
weren't being paid for room service for the poor.

The story showed some of the rooms which were very very messy. Perhaps
unacceptably so. And yet... and yet... for some reason they remained
uncleaned.

> And if it is destroyed, then the successor to it will cut
> back and raise taxes.

I doubt the inevitability of this.

[David Johnston]

On 2/11/2012 11:25 AM, theget wrote:

>> And if it is destroyed, then the successor to it will cut
>> back and raise taxes.
>
> I doubt the inevitability of this.

Why?

[theget]

If it really was inevitable then the US would do it before it was
destroyed, assuming of course that not doing this would lead to
destruction. IOW, if it's inevitable for a successor state then I can
see no reason why it wouldn't be inevitable for the current one.

NB I'm not commenting on the wisdom of doing this, just that I don't
think it's inevitable. I think very few things are inevitable.

So whaddaya think? Is Greece going to collapse? Will Germany bail
them out? Will a world wide economic collapse follow no matter what
because they let it go too long? Is it inevitable?

[Martin Edwards]

I read the abstract. Opinion dressed up as fact. Here they fired
thousands of public sector workers expecting private sector jobs to
spring up like dragons' teeth. No show so far.

[Martin Edwards]

I don't know whether a country can actually go bankrupt, but it is a
point to ponder.

[theget]

On Feb 12, 5:34 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 19:19, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 9:11 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
> >> On 09/02/2012 16:58, theget wrote:>  On Feb 9, 2:54 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>    wrote:
>
> >>>> No, Commie mad dogs
>
> >>> Repetition. I like repetition.
>
> >>>> like me want a graduated income tax, which we do
> >>>> have, but it is not steep enough. Ah, the seventies!  That noted rebel
> >>>> Mick Jagger left the country because they taxed him too much.  And
> >>>> tonight on poor bastards....................
>
> >>> What would be right slope for that graduated income tax?
>
> >> I haven't a firm view, but there are quite a few doing the rounds here.
>
> > I'm sure there are.  Many people have opinions.
>
> > BTW, I haven't read this but I've read some interesting things about
> > it.  Have you heard about this?
> >http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1399.pdf
>
> I read the abstract.  Opinion dressed up as fact.  Here they fired
> thousands of public sector workers expecting private sector jobs to
> spring up like dragons' teeth.  No show so far.

Here?

Are you in Canada? There are rumors floating around the web that
Canada reduced its government spending and the private sector picked
up the slack and more. If you are in Canada do you mean to reference
a more local "here"? A province perhaps? A city?

[theget]

On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 00:12, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2:18 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2012 11:25 AM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>> And if it is destroyed, then the successor to it will cut
> >>>> back and raise taxes.
>
> >>> I doubt the inevitability of this.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > If it really was inevitable then the US would do it before it was
> > destroyed, assuming of course that not doing this would lead to
> > destruction.  IOW, if it's inevitable for a successor state then I can
> > see no reason why it wouldn't be inevitable for the current one.
>
> >   NB I'm not commenting on the wisdom of doing this, just that I don't
> > think it's inevitable.  I think very few things are inevitable.
>
> > So whaddaya think?  Is Greece going to collapse?  Will Germany bail
> > them out?  Will a world wide economic collapse follow no matter what
> > because they let it go too long?  Is it inevitable?
>
> I don't know whether a country can actually go bankrupt, but it is a
> point to ponder.

Depends if you mean the word bankrupt as a legal issue or an economic
one. Doesn't it?

Why couldn't a country go bankrupt?

I suppose usually we call it default instead of bankrupt. I don't
think there's a court where you can take a bankrupt country to
collect. What assets would a country have anyway?

[David Johnston]

When a country can no longer pay it's troops, that's close enough, as
Russia learned.

[Martin Edwards]

On 12/02/2012 16:51, theget wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:34 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 19:19, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 9:11 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 09/02/2012 16:58, theget wrote:> On Feb 9, 2:54 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No, Commie mad dogs
>>
>>>>> Repetition. I like repetition.
>>
>>>>>> like me want a graduated income tax, which we do
>>>>>> have, but it is not steep enough. Ah, the seventies! That noted rebel
>>>>>> Mick Jagger left the country because they taxed him too much. And
>>>>>> tonight on poor bastards....................
>>
>>>>> What would be right slope for that graduated income tax?
>>
>>>> I haven't a firm view, but there are quite a few doing the rounds here.
>>
>>> I'm sure there are. Many people have opinions.
>>
>>> BTW, I haven't read this but I've read some interesting things about
>>> it. Have you heard about this?
>>> http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1399.pdf
>>
>> I read the abstract. Opinion dressed up as fact. Here they fired
>> thousands of public sector workers expecting private sector jobs to
>> spring up like dragons' teeth. No show so far.

> ig

> Here?
>
> Are you in Canada? There are rumors floating around the web that
> Canada reduced its government spending and the private sector picked
> up the slack and more. If you are in Canada do you mean to reference
> a more local "here"? A province perhaps? A city?
>
>
>

UK, and I mean the national government. As a lot of local government
funds come from central government it meant job losses at all levels.
As you may know we do not have a federal system. Although there are
nominal local governments, the country is run by agents of international
capital in Westminster, the other city in Greater London to the West of
The City of London, which is to all intents and purposes offshore.
Greater London, which has an elected mayor (not to be confused with the
Lord Mayor of [the City of] London) and an assembly of sorts, is made up
of Boroughs with their own councils. Thus Birmingham, a city of only a
million and hardly a city at all by world standards, is the biggest
local authority.

[theget]

On Feb 13, 3:51 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 16:51, theget wrote:
>
>

> >>> BTW, I haven't read this but I've read some interesting things about
> >>> it.  Have you heard about this?
> >>>http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1399.pdf
>
> >> I read the abstract.  Opinion dressed up as fact.  Here they fired
> >> thousands of public sector workers expecting private sector jobs to
> >> spring up like dragons' teeth.  No show so far.
> > ig
> > Here?
>
> > Are you in Canada?  There are rumors floating around the web that
> > Canada reduced its government spending and the private sector picked
> > up the slack and more.  If you are in Canada do you mean to reference
> > a more local "here"?  A province perhaps? A city?
>
> UK, and I mean the national government.  As a lot of local government
> funds come from central government

Really? From the central government? How does the central government
get the funds? Print them up?

> it meant job losses at all levels.

And that's bad because....

> As you may know we do not have a federal system.  Although there are
> nominal local governments, the country is run by agents of international
> capital

International Capital? Do you mean the Germans? I hear the Greeks are
complaining about how the Germans are trying to control their economy
too. I've heard rumors that the Greeks think it's all part and parcel
of WWII. I suppose in that case international capital failed in their
takeover-attempt/occupation but now they're trying again.

So I guess we ought to look for Operation Sea Lion Part Deux?

> in Westminster, the other city in Greater London to the West of
> The City of London, which is to all intents and purposes offshore.
> Greater London, which has an elected mayor (not to be confused with the
> Lord Mayor of [the City of] London) and an assembly of sorts, is made up
> of Boroughs with their own councils.

So each of the local councils gets the money that was printed up by
the Germans in Westminster?

>  Thus Birmingham, a city of only a
> million and hardly a city at all by world standards, is the biggest
> local authority.

Do they have economies of scale?

Did they fire the redundant or did they keep a whole bunch of people
to teach arts and crafts to people who would be better served by
ASBOs?

How much money does International World Germanry let them have?

[Martin Edwards]

An ethnic group as the scapegoat for the failure of free markets. That
reminds me of, er, it's on the tip of my tongue.....................

[theget]

On Feb 16, 3:49 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 18:22, theget wrote:

> >> the country is run by agents of international
> >> capital

> > How much money does International World Germanry let them have?
>
> An ethnic group as the scapegoat for the failure of free markets.  That
> reminds me of, er, it's on the tip of my tongue.....................

I wasn't blaming the Germans. Someone has to be fiscally responsible
and decide who gets the loans and at what interest. Who else could do
that?

Free markets? Where? Where? Tell me where they are so I can go there.

[Martin Edwards]

As Orwell wrote in his review of Hayek, the trouble with competitions is
that somebody wins them.

[theget]

On Feb 17, 4:24 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/02/2012 22:10, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:49 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2012 18:22, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>   the country is run by agents of international
> >>>> capital
>
> >>> How much money does International World Germanry let them have?
>
> >> An ethnic group as the scapegoat for the failure of free markets.  That
> >> reminds me of, er, it's on the tip of my tongue.....................
>
> > I wasn't blaming the Germans. Someone has to be fiscally responsible
> > and decide who gets the loans and at what interest. Who else could do
> > that?
>
> > Free markets?  Where? Where? Tell me where they are so I can go there.
>
> As Orwell wrote in his review of Hayek, the trouble with competitions is
> that somebody wins them.

Why is that trouble?

[Martin Edwards]

Have you seen the original Rollerball?

[theget]

On Feb 18, 6:23 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 14:24, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 4:24 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
> >> On 16/02/2012 22:10, theget wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 16, 3:49 am, Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk>    wrote:
> >>>> On 13/02/2012 18:22, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>>>    the country is run by agents of international
> >>>>>> capital
>
> >>>>> How much money does International World Germanry let them have?
>
> >>>> An ethnic group as the scapegoat for the failure of free markets.  That
> >>>> reminds me of, er, it's on the tip of my tongue.....................
>
> >>> I wasn't blaming the Germans. Someone has to be fiscally responsible
> >>> and decide who gets the loans and at what interest. Who else could do
> >>> that?
>
> >>> Free markets?  Where? Where? Tell me where they are so I can go there.
>
> >> As Orwell wrote in his review of Hayek, the trouble with competitions is
> >> that somebody wins them.
>
> > Why is that trouble?
>
> Have you seen the original Rollerball?

I did. I actually watched it in one of those cheap all-nighters. The
kind of place where candy and cigarettes litter the oh-so-sticky floor
because they don't clean up between shows. Maybe because there is no
in between shows. They run all the time and once you sit down in the
seat you've paid for you have no way of telling day from night
anymore. I had some time to kill so I wandered in, not to get out of
the sun, no. Not even to keep warm at night, no. Not even to take a
nap, no. I was hoping to find someone to teach me how to write noir
prose. There was a guy behind me who kept muttering "Kill him. Kill
him." Come to think of it, I don't know if was hoping to witness some
on screen action or if he was hoping for some L&O RFTH action. Maybe
he didn't know either. Now I can't enjoy classical music anymore.
Care for a milkshake and some ultra-violence? Wrong movie?

So yeah. I watched it. I watched it a few times one long bitterly
cold night. I'm not sure when the dawn came, but eventually I left
that theater.

What about it?

[Alan Pollock]

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> in between shows. They run all the time and once you sit down in the
> seat you've paid for you have no way of telling day from night
> anymore. I had some time to kill so I wandered in, not to get out of
> the sun, no. Not even to keep warm at night, no. Not even to take a
> nap, no. I was hoping to find someone to teach me how to write noir
> prose. There was a guy behind me who kept muttering "Kill him. Kill
> him." Come to think of it, I don't know if was hoping to witness some
> on screen action or if he was hoping for some L&O RFTH action. Maybe
> he didn't know either. Now I can't enjoy classical music anymore.
> Care for a milkshake and some ultra-violence? Wrong movie?

> So yeah. I watched it. I watched it a few times one long bitterly
> cold night. I'm not sure when the dawn came, but eventually I left
> that theater.

That's when Molly came back into my life on that wet grey street, wearing the
raincoat, rain pouring down the loose strands of brown hair that partially
covered her face, a face that looked at me askance, like she knew me but
wasn't sure. Yeah, I was all stiff and cramped-up from sitting in that theater
seat for 5 hours give or take, and yeah I was cranky from all the flat soda
the fat guy sold me from behind the small, badly-lit coffee-stained counter in
the lobby, and yeah my heart almost stopped when I saw her. She wasn't sure
but I was. Molly.

It had all started back when the Buick reigned supreme 7 or 8 years ago. I
remember that day fondly. The glaring sun beat hard on the spit-splattered
sidewalk, and on the Buick I'd just parked at the curb....

[Martin Edwards]

"Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all
it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with
management decisions." The guy who made that speech had a posh English
accent, though I believe he was actually Romanian.

[theget]

That's why we should let government have all the power and make all
the decisions. Life will be so much better that way. Now step
forward. I want to tattoo your ID number.

> The guy who made that speech had a posh English
> accent, though I believe he was actually Romanian.

Yes... we've been wondering about who actually controls England. He's
probably not really a Romanian. He just wants you to think he's a
Romanian. He probably attended some school in Berlin where they teach
people phoney accents. All part of some plot to control world
banking. Er... capital. I meant to control international capital.
That's it. Right?

[theget]

She and a friend walked out of Gower's Drug Store and past my car just
as Tommy came running out of that bank. Sure, we were in a rush, but
I asked the two of them if they wanted to go for a ride. At first I
liked her friend, a big red head named Daisy who chewed gum and had
gams that didn't stop anywhere I could see. When the ride finally
came to an end, it was Molly. Molly who I couldn't take my eyes off.
I think she liked looking at me too, the way her head tilted a little
bit and how she gave me just a hint of a smile as she asked me why
Tommy was in such a rush, the way she ran her fingers along the
necklace she was wearing. I didn't think she really cared that much
about why Tommy was in a rush to get out of that bank, and that was ok
with me. We hit it off. A perfect match. Like milk and cookies. Like
tea and honey. My honey and me. Seeing her again made it all come
back. The way she looked. The way she walked. The way she walked
away.

[Martin Edwards]

Now I remember, his name was John Houseman. Perhaps he was a
Transylvanian German.

[theget]

Evidently our new International Germanry Bankers; have not figured out
the whole lending thing only when you have an expectation that the
debtor will be able to pay back the money; fear the whole thing will
go up the chimney.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,816903,00.html

[Martin Edwards]

You may be right there. When you think about it, the places where
civilisation began, Mesopotamia, Iran, Greece, North Africa, are down
the tube. You would have thought that they would have learned something
by now.

[theget]

I think that list is incomplete. A list with "where civilization
began" as it's criteria would surely have to include Egypt, India and
China.

> are down the tube.

Not India and China.

> You would have thought that they would have learned something
> by now.

Taking a broader view of the list, I'm sure they did learn something.
But the lessons of those societies, eg some of the specifics of the
Code of Hammurabi, were not always good ones.

So even though we see this,
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/19/9564314-satellites-document-north-koreas-dark-ages
there is always a glimmer of hope.
http://www.economist.com/node/21547865