Herman Cain

Josh, I can see you aren't getting this, and I don't think I can explain it any better.

You are trying to make the case that the wealthy receive an unfair benefit from public resources just because they have a larger piece of the pie.

The reality is, at least as it relates to many public resources, that businesses and the wealthy pay for most of the public resources so the rest of us can enjoy them.

So, the "benefit" you are making the case for is a negative.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

madmallard wrote: Its not that I don't think business use and profit from public resources, but its the exclusivity you give the symbiotic relationship of a rich billionare with a business that is the category error. Your text reads like you're identifying them as one entity, irrevocably tied to eachother.

Ah, indeed, but I believe if you examine your extemporaneous prose in a critical manner you will discover that it is captious to a fault. Extrapolating from your thesis that there is no relationship, symbolic or otherwise, between the pecunious citizen and the lucrative métier which he makes his life’s work, I postulate the conjecture that copious resources procured through public patronage prove disproportionately salutary to said opulent mortal. More info here: http://www.write101.com/jgconfidence.htm

That's pretty funny!

I was, however, hoping your link would shed some light on the thesis about the opium smoking mortal combat dude, instead of reminding me of that awful English teacher I had in 10th grade!

Josh wrote: You do realize that you are currently arguing directly against the core principle of free market economics, right?

No, not really. There are people on this forum that are better at this than me, I'd love to try to explain it but... everything you've said so far is so "not right" I just don't know where to begin. I'm trying to find why that is, but from what I get from your posts, it is simply because the "value" of something (to you) is its true worth, irregardless of what it actually cost. This confuses me greatly, as at that point there is no reference.

A road costs $100k to maintain. One person drivers on it, using up $1k of that $100k maintenance. A business has 20 trucks who drive on it, using up $1k per truck = $20k. The business (by an extension of having paid taxes FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE similiar to the individual on a per vehicle basis) is able to earn $500 per truck over and above the amount paid to use the road.

The $500 DOES NOT MATTER. It does not factor into this equation. It would be like y = mx + b and then adding a giraffe in there for good measure. It simply has no purpose.

You guys watch Ice Road Truckers?

I love that show. That's a tough job- that Dalton Highway is crazy. "Highway" is being generous. It's just packed ice and snow kinda leveled off enough to drive a truck over it. The bridges are nice though. Some of them are huge, too. Must have cost a fortune to build.

Every season, they show some offshoots- little side stories along the way. There's the guy who shoots the explosives into the mountain to bring down the snow so there's not an avalanche. There's the guys who break up the ice flow on the rivers so they don't take out the bridges. Someone always ends up taking out a deliniator or two and some highway crew has to put in new ones. Crazy stuff.

Thing is, there is almost never anyone on the road but the trucks. And almost all the loads are supplies for the oil industry. Oh, yeah, there are a few runs to small towns off the Dalton. But by and large, load after load services the oil industry.

Man, all that road maintenance, bridge building, avalanche mitigation - it must cost millions of public dollars every year, and the oil industry benefits way more than anyone else - shoot, almost exclusively.

It does make me think. And it's fun to watch too.

Wait, giraffes have a purpose!

They make zebras taller!!

And something else to think about- you hear a lot of people say we should run the government like a business. If we did that, Alaska would shut down that Dalton Highway tomorrow. They're losing money hand over fist with it.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

If the oil industry is anything like the logging industry, they build their own roads.

SVreX wrote: Josh, I can see you aren't getting this, and I don't think I can explain it any better. You are trying to make the case that the wealthy receive an unfair benefit from public resources just because they have a larger piece of the pie.

I most assuredly "get it", I just don't agree with you. I don't think they get an unfair benefit, not in the slightest. I think they get a larger benefit, and that's why in the interest of "fairness" it makes sense to ask them to pay a larger share of the costs. It's not like this is a novel theory. From a utilitarian perspective, there's a pretty clear correlation between higher marginal tax rates and increased economic growth. The wealthy still get wealthier when their top tax rates are higher, they just aren't the only ones who do so.

SVreX wrote: That's pretty funny! I was, however, hoping your link would shed some light on the thesis about the opium smoking mortal combat dude, instead of reminding me of that awful English teacher I had in 10th grade!

My work here is done.

SVreX wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: If the oil industry is anything like the logging industry, they build their own roads.

Nope, not on this show. It's a good point, though. Why do we pay for this highway for the oil industry, but make the logging industry build their own? Do we subsidize lumber companies? You'd think with the trillions in subsidies for the oil industry they could build and maintain a road or two.

Josh wrote: I think they get a *larger* benefit, and that's why in the interest of "fairness" it makes sense to ask them to pay a larger share of the costs.

But nothing you have said has begun to convince anyone in this thread that you are correct, so what you "think" appears to be in conflict with all the logic presented.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: If the oil industry is anything like the logging industry, they build their own roads.

Nope, not on this show. It's a good point, though. Why do we pay for this highway for the oil industry, but make the logging industry build their own? Do we subsidize lumber companies? You'd think with the trillions in subsidies for the oil industry they could build and maintain a road or two.

Meybe we wantz the oil.

SVreX wrote: Meybe we wantz the oil.

Yup. I think you got it. All this "Socialist" this and "Socialist" that. If Socialism is so bad, maybe all the Tea Party folks should boycott the oil industry. Turns out it's more Socialist than Obamacare.

The ironic part is the cries of "Socialism" if we subsidize any alternative.

My point is that government gives benefits to certain businesses in certain instances for very specific reasons. We want to encourage them to act a certain way.

Don't forget, there would be a cost to the government if we DID NOT have the oil.

So, they offer incentives to get someone to provide what they want.

I don't think the government wants to drill for the oil. Besides, they don't own the mineral rights or the digging equipment, and don't really want the oil rig operators on the unemployment line.

The government is not just giving out a big handout to the wealthy. They are getting what they want in return which, theoretically, is a benefit to all of us.

HiTempguy wrote: The $500 DOES NOT MATTER. It does not factor into this equation.

Of course it does. The ability to turn $1000 of expenditures into $1500 in value for the public is precisely the point of building the road in the first place. The fallacy of your logic is that we'd never have the money to build another road and create another $500 in value for the public because, uh, I guess it's wrong to charge more for something than it costs? Or worse, we'd build another road using money we borrowed from the our children or the chinese instead of just utilizing the value that was created by the last one. I think it's a pretty short-sighted stance to take that government spending is zero-sum.

Hell, the whole job of running a government basically amounts to trying to figure out how to balance the cost vs. the value of everything that it does.

In reply to SVreX:

Yeah- but that's social engineering through tax policy- and through public spending. It's okay to build and maintain roads, but people get bent out of shape if we build public transportation. It's okay to build infrastructure that benefits the oil industry and give them huge subsidies, but it's a waste of tax payer money to subsidize wind or solar industry.

All the things that so many decry are being done every day. And those same people defend them to no end. It's like a giant case of collective cognitive dissonance. Shoot, now I'm doing it. What I mean is, they're all a bunch of hypocrites.

SVreX wrote:

Josh wrote: I think they get a *larger* benefit, and that's why in the interest of "fairness" it makes sense to ask them to pay a larger share of the costs.

But nothing you have said has begun to convince anyone in this thread that you are correct, so what you "think" appears to be in conflict with all the logic presented.

I can't see that you've changed any opinions either .

So, who is Herman Cain?

Josh wrote: Of course it does. The ability to turn $1000 of expenditures into $1500 in value for the public is precisely the point of building the road in the first place.

No its not. The purpose of the road is to connect people from A to people from B.

It's weird, you clearly being a liberal minded person, are trying to put a business perspective to government. The government is not a business, its purpose is zero sum. The government is essentially one big subsidy, where it makes sense to have such things (having one military, rather than thousands of militias for instance).

The gov is not in the business of making money. Beyond taxing a person, what value you gain from their services is irrelevant as long as the costs of said services are covered. When they take more than it costs to cover the service, you might as well go private sector business at that point!

fasted58 wrote: So, who is Herman Cain?

Well, the Democrats needed someone who was not Bush. Obama was more not Bush than anyone else, so he won. Now the Republicans are looking at the formula and using it to their advantage. A black guy with little experience won last time. Herman Cain is an even blacker guy with even less experience. So they figure he's a shoe in.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

fasted58 wrote: So, who is Herman Cain?

Well, the Democrats needed someone who was not Bush. Obama was more not Bush than anyone else, so he won. Now the Republicans are looking at the formula and using it to their advantage. A black guy with little experience won last time. Herman Cain is an even blacker guy with even less experience. So they figure he's a shoe in.

Do you actually believe Republicans are pulling strings so Cain gets high polling numbers before the first delegate casts a vote, or are you just enjoying a Rocky Mountain high?

As for experience, I suggest Cain's experience in the boardroom, (i.e, the real world) is at least the equivalent of Obama's limited and timid tenure as a Senator.

Cain's appeal isn't that he's blacker than Obama, it's that he resonates with people who are fed up with politicians who make good speeches, spend way too much of their money and always blame it the other guys.

oldsaw wrote: Do you actually believe Republicans are pulling strings so Cain gets high polling numbers before the first delegate casts a vote, or are you just enjoying a Rocky Mountain high?

Oh God no. I was just making a joke. Sorry, I thought it was obvious. No as I said before, if I were a Republican, this whole thing with Cain leading the polls would drive me nuts.

As for his experience, as I've said, and as HiTemp said, the government is not a business. It's just not the same thing. And experience has shown that success or failure in one does not predict the same in the other. I mean, look at W. He was a terrible failure as a business man. But once he was elected President... well. Maybe you're right.

Tell you this, I do think the dude wants to raise taxes and by God, I agree with him there.

HiTempguy wrote: It's weird, you clearly being a liberal minded person, are trying to put a business perspective to government. The government is not a business, its purpose is zero sum. The government is essentially one big subsidy, where it makes sense to have such things (having one military, rather than thousands of militias for instance).

I am not a "liberal", at least not in the sense that you seem to be using the word. I think the government should work a whole lot harder making sure the money it spends actually returns value for people and above all allow them to live their life freely and fairly. I don't think a lack of government is freedom, though. I think a nation where everyone has the resources or can afford to be healthy and well educated is the most free. I don't think allowing individuals or companies to damage collective resources like the environment is fair. I also don't think muddling with open markets by giving particular businesses or industries tax breaks or subsidies is fair, I'd prefer spending on resources that benefit all industries. I'd love to see welfare/unemployment/etc. converted into programs that put people to work returning actual value rather than just sending out checks. I think the government could and should spend far less than it does and get more for it, but in the short term I think it's horribly irresponsible for it to spend imaginary money rather than attempting to raise revenues. I think our tax system is too complex and burdensome, but most proposals to "simplify" it make it worse. There's not any term I'd label myself with, unfortunately people in this country seem to think everyone has to identify themselves as part of one camp or another for their thoughts to be valid (that's not to say that any of those camps think the thoughts of people in the other camps are valid). I'm disappointed with Obama, didn't vote for him, but don't think I would vote for any of the current alternatives either. Guess just I don't count :).

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

madmallard wrote: Its not that I don't think business use and profit from public resources, but its the exclusivity you give the symbiotic relationship of a rich billionare with a business that is the category error. Your text reads like you're identifying them as one entity, irrevocably tied to eachother.

Ah, indeed, but I believe if you examine your extemporaneous prose in a critical manner you will discover that it is captious to a fault. Extrapolating from your thesis that there is no relationship, symbolic or otherwise, between the pecunious citizen and the lucrative métier which he makes his life’s work, I postulate the conjecture that copious resources procured through public patronage prove disproportionately salutary to said opulent mortal. More info here: http://www.write101.com/jgconfidence.htm

lol

I think you see pretty clearly now that while I'm oft misread, the truth of my discourse is I'm not clever enough to simplify my language any further. If I was, people would probably consider my offerings more readily. I envy those who can communicate so efficiently, because whenever I try to emulate them, it feels as tho I've figuratively amputated a limb from my words.

I didn't say there was no relationship, and that wasn't the corollary to the premise he was forming. I was saying it wasn't relevant to the point I was making in even bringing up relative use of resources being deemed fair.

Any benefit the billionaire gets thru their company is indirect, and those aren't exclusively enjoyed by them; the lesser earner also enjoys the indirect benefit the company is using.

The problem I was trying to point out is that people oft try to marry rich people to a particular business, and that creates a problem in defining their own argument. The rich should pay more, they say. Well, why tax the company? Because its the rich person's company. But that tax won't affect them as much as it will affect the business, its employees and its customers. Your Ipad will cost more, and the worker will take home less pay. Then higher taxes on the rich person directly, they say. you can see from here how this line of thinking either starts to break down, or becomes unpalatable to continue for most...