US to have highest corporate tax rate in the world in 30 days

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Hoosier8, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ohhh wait..you're asking me to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing appeal to authority? (*)(*)(*)(*) that. Logical fallacy that is.

    Anyways. Why don't I give you MY ideas on why my idea of geoism would work better than either Marxism or right-wing-style capitalism or Keynesianism (which is really a sort of socialistic capitalism hybrid)?
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Support your position with political economy. That you can't condemns you to a simple result: you have dogmatic foot stamping and no content.
     
  3. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What the hell is your ideal economic system?
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm a market socialist and I can of course refer to political economy in support. Get back to me when you've thought things through. Internet georgists don't half come across as a little work shy when it comes to supporting their position with anything more substantial than "cos I say so"
     
  5. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What exactly is a "market socialist"?
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read up on it and get back to me. I'm not here to educate you
     
  7. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right: your purpose here is to dismiss, distract, distort and deceive.
     
  8. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Axioms are not dogma, stop lying.
     
  9. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Independent"??? ROTFL!! An independent economics journal would be self-financing. Which ones are, hmmmm?
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're run by the editorial staff; by definition independent. Now don't dodge again. I'm finding your stance rather fascinating: Could you give a little more detail with regards these 'financial interests' which control these hundreds of independent economic journals?
     
  11. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Capitalism is not private enterprise but private ownership of the means of production: land (i.e., natural resources) and capital. Geoism recognizes that land can't rightly be made into private property, and its removal from the public domain for exclusive private use must therefore rightly be compensated. If land were genuinely private property, as under capitalism, no compensation would be due.
     
  12. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL! Oh, do try not to be stupid, dear boy! I have worked as one of the editorial staff on a journal, and your claim is HILARIOUS. Journals serve their owners. Period.
    I didn't dodge, so that's just another lie from you. Don't lie again.
    Please identify one that is self-financing, and therefore actually independent.

    Thought not.
     
  13. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't refute, so you have to ignore, dismiss and ridicule. We know. We've seen it thousands of times from you. It's never any different.
    You are still lying, Reiver. Please prove my prediction about you correct again, and contrive a pretext for dismissing the Foldvary article in Econ Journal Watch.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The publishers are merely interested in ensuring subscriptions. That is actually generated by ensuring heterogeneity in output, ensuring that a journal fits within a hole in the literature. Indeed, my other half has just been approached to be the editor in an applied economics variation (won't give the exact detail though as I wouldn't want to encourage stalking behaviour!)

    Again, could you give a little more detail with regards these 'financial interests' which control these hundreds of independent economic journals?
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you read it? Its better than your usual blind copy and paste efforts, but its ultimately just a whinge about undergraduate textbooks. Take this comment:

    Every microeconomics textbook shows the “producer surplus” as the area between the supply curve and the price. But no textbook that I have seen, with the exception of David Friedman (1996), has thought to ask who receives the surplus. If the industry is perfectly competitive, firms being price takers, there is no economic profit, yet the surplus is a return beyond costs.

    Perfect competition cannot exist. Further, if we wanted to attack the neoclassical textbook approach we'd merely note that the marginal cost curve is purely hypothetical and that, without reference to transaction costs, we'd have no rationale for the existence of the firm. In addition, if you want to question the microeconomic textbooks we'd refer to the pluralist approach to economics and describe the mathematical errors in the neoclassical basic model
     
  16. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, thanks for proving that we can add publishing to the list of topics of which you are comprehensively ignorant.
    The only hole economics journals fill is a propaganda hole.
    Having no doubt already demonstrated suitable subservience to the journal owners' agenda...
    I can't think of an independent peer-reviewed economics journal: they're all beholden to those who fund them. Can you think of one that is FINANCIALLY independent? If not, then the relevant financial interests are whoever is paying the bills.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My comment was mere fact. That I've recently seen it in action, via the missus, is just spiffing in showing the naivety of your stance

    Detail the nature of this propaganda control. What is stopping georgism from publishing, particularly as most journals aren't specific to any specific political economic school of thought?
     
  18. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course.
    ?? I rarely copy and paste, so stop lying.
    No, of course it isn't. You are just lying again. You always have to lie. ALWAYS.
    You have to evade, so you plonk out irrelevancy. Inevitable, really. The fact that there is no perfectly frictionless surface or perfectly elastic collision does not stop physicists from analyzing how objects move and interact by reference to such ideal conditions.

    As I predicted, and knew was inevitable, you are contriving excuses to ignore, dismiss and evade the facts the article identifies.
    The firm is not the issue in that passage. The surplus independent of the firm is the issue. You are merely trying to change the subject. Again. Inevitably.
    You again prove that as you cannot refute, you must therefore resort to ignoring, dismissing, and changing the subject.

    God, you are such a waste of time.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice to see you at least admit that you copy and paste. Well done for being open!

    Count up how many times it mentions textbooks!

    Actually I have to refer to the obvious: you've referred to an article that describes the limitations of orthodox textbooks. I've referred to more important limitations (accepted of course within the discipline as advanced theory necessarily includes reference to aspects of them)

    Again you only show your ignorance of economics! Perfect competition is a theory of the firm. Bit obvious really
     
  20. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lie.
    No, you have not. You are lying.
    You ignore financial control of journals, and call ME naive?? ROTFL!!
    <yawn> I'll let another Nobel laureate in economics explain it to you:

    "But one cannot ignore the possibility that the survival of the [neoclassical] paradigm was partly because the belief in that paradigm, and the policy prescriptions, has served certain interests." -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
    ?? "Georgism" is not a financial entity. Duh.
    I already explained that to you multiple times: facts known for hundreds of years are not eligible for publication in academic journals. Why do you have to pretend you do not know that?

    As if we both don't know very well why...
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is your lack of perspective. It makes you make silly comment and deny reality.

    To have any relevant remark you'd have to argue that publishers aren't interested in publishing Georgist paper because everyone doesn't care about Georgist paper. You might have something there!

    The interesting aspect of the neoclassical school is its ability to utilise both other political economic schools of thought and analysis from the other disciplines (e.g. see the similarity in efficiency wage analysis with the Marxists). That the Georgists haven't joined the party reflects their reliance on dead Henry.

    You refer to facts, without rationale, because you cannot support your position with evidence. Its no different to the standard cultist stance

    But thanks for the laugh. You make the "Jewish banking conspiracy" nonsense look small fry!
     
  22. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <yawn> I'm not the one claiming homeowners are poorer and more exploited than the landless, pal. You are.
    No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.
    No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.
    You know you are lying. I have identified the relevant facts and logic for you many times.
    No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.
     
  23. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ?? I've never denied it. Sometimes someone else has expressed something better than I can. You copy and paste, too. So what?
    Thanks for evading again.
    Among other things.
    No, what you've referred to are trivial oversights by comparison with the deficiencies Foldvary identified.
    Except that it isn't.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope I read and critique. Its great to see you so open about your tactics though. You've given such desperately poor supporting evidence that it was obvious, but admission is one step closer to a solution!

    The problem is that you've put your foot in it again! By copying and pasting you've chosen an article that makes a rather tediously obvious point: microeconomic textbooks aren't that much cop!
     
  25. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You lie. You copied and pasted in post #90 in this very thread.

    You just always have to lie. About everything.
     

Share This Page