GTKAS - Lord Gurgi

[Lord Gurgi]

When do you think that Eugene Debbs began to subscribe to an ideology that could accurately be described as "socialist"?

Most likely shortly after getting out of jail. While unions are not an exclusively socialist idea, the leaders tend to be socialist, but I can't really make judgment upon his mindset, in a historical sense.

[Adel]

does this image surprise you?

No. With the income tax which was unconstitutional for a good reason, they did lower tariffs, but both screw over productivity on a whole.

How should the federal government gather revenue? A consumption tax?

Is progressive taxation a fair idea? Is it a morally justified idea?

Where does new money come from?

New resources, technology, information, and increased productivity through any number of means, most usually education.

Why not the government printing press? Why not fractional reserve banking?

What is "money"?

what you think of the case presented at http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18205.htm ?

A bit pessimistic, but not exactly wrong. The thing is that this only works under a system where the money is not tied to a physical thing. With the printing of money, the government, and the banks by extension, pretty much have free reign.

Did you actually watch the 45min video there?

[Lord Gurgi]

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[10] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[11]

This is mostly, if not entirely correlation, not causation. And even when painting it as causation is a stretch from a chronological standpoint, let along an economic.

[Simenon]

RUTHERFORD, Harrison, Garfield, Bush Sr., Taft, and John Quincy are stuck in a room. They'll have to cannibalize.

1. After 17 days, who comes out alive?
2. How many pounds does Taft gain?

[Adel]

How would you characterize Eugene Debs' perception (during the 1880's) of the implicit social contract between labor and management?

I would assume, my perception of dates is rather hazy, that he was socialist at this time, as he was later, even though he was technically just a Democrat at the time. That said, his ideas of social cooperation are just that, ideas. And the requisite force required to fit people inside a socialist system, despite his nonviolent tendencies, would inevitably lead to some description of national oppression.

When do you think that Eugene Debbs began to subscribe to an ideology that could accurately be described as "socialist"?

Most likely shortly after getting out of jail. While unions are not an exclusively socialist idea, the leaders tend to be socialist, but I can't really make judgment upon his mindset, in a historical sense.

In the US, what problems were the original trade unions intended to solve?

In the US, did trade socialist ideology predate trade unions?

[Lord Gurgi]

does this image surprise you?

No. With the income tax which was unconstitutional for a good reason, they did lower tariffs, but both screw over productivity on a whole.

How should the federal government gather revenue? A consumption tax?

I suppose.

Is progressive taxation a fair idea? Is it a morally justified idea?

Any taxation system that is not a flat rate is 'unfair', because it either punishes those who succeed, or those who do not, and the tax code should in no way be a punishment or an equaliser. I don't think it's morally justified either, the successful should be able to be successful without being punished for it, and the unsuccessful should not be burdened for it either.

Where does new money come from?

New resources, technology, information, and increased productivity through any number of means, most usually education.

Why not the government printing press? Why not fractional reserve banking?

What is "money"?

Green paper and metal circles are not money. Money is little more than a representation of wealth, and without the gold standard, is supported only by faith in the government which prints it.

what you think of the case presented at http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18205.htm ?

A bit pessimistic, but not exactly wrong. The thing is that this only works under a system where the money is not tied to a physical thing. With the printing of money, the government, and the banks by extension, pretty much have free reign.

Did you actually watch the 45min video there?

I had previously, I don't think I watched the last 10 minutes of it then, though.

[Adel]

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[10] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[11]

This is mostly, if not entirely correlation, not causation. And even when painting it as causation is a stretch from a chronological standpoint, let along an economic.

What were the positive economic effects of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act?

What were the negative economic effects?

Did the good balance out the bad?

[Lord Gurgi]

RUTHERFORD, Harrison, Garfield, Bush Sr., Taft, and John Quincy are stuck in a room. They'll have to cannibalize.

1. After 17 days, who comes out alive?
2. How many pounds does Taft gain?

Well Bush Sr. The other guys are already dead. And a dead fat man doesn't gain weight.

[Lord Gurgi]

In the US, what problems were the original trade unions intended to solve?

In the US, did trade socialist ideology predate trade unions?

As far as I know, they were established to prevent unfair working standards in industrial work. Obviously they predated them, you can't make something before you have the idea to make it.

[Lord Gurgi]

What were the positive economic effects of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act?

What were the negative economic effects?

Did the good balance out the bad?

Positive:
1. Protected some industries from competition.
Negative:
1. Increased international tariffs on U.S. Goods.
2. Increased dependence on the government.
3. Decreased self-sufficiency.

No, it didn't balance.

[Adel]

What isn't this essay convincing to you?

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.

An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.

But this situation is threatened by conservative tax policy. Through unfair cuts in taxes paid by the wealthy, through payment for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and through borrowing abroad to pay for the tax cuts and Iraq, the common wealth is being drained and the infrastructure allowed to fall apart. We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America's empowering infrastructure.

What is "wealth"?

[Adel]

What were the positive economic effects of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act?

What were the negative economic effects?

Did the good balance out the bad?

Positive:
1. Protected some industries from competition.
Negative:
1. Increased international tariffs on U.S. Goods.
2. Increased dependence on the government.
3. Decreased self-sufficiency.

No, it didn't balance.

Do you think that it generated a tremendous amount of revenue for the US government?

Do you think that it had more negative or less negative effect on our trading partners?

Have you read Chapter 13 of

A People's History of the United States

yet?

[Lord Gurgi]

Because I don't think it is necessary to tax the wealthy more (proportionately) than everyone else, in order to provide these things. That and I think that public health ought to be removed entirely.

Wealth is the ability to buy.

[Adel]

What is "intellectual honesty"?

[Lord Gurgi]

Do you think that it generated a tremendous amount of revenue for the US government?

Do you think that it had more negative or less negative effect on our trading partners?

Have you read Chapter 13 of

A People's History of the United States

yet?

No, they rarely do, especially with the high spending of the government at the time. Probably had less negative effect. Because we were getting screwed by everyone, and they were only getting screwed by us. And I haven't, I'm reading it in tandem with a class, and it annoys them when I bring in stuff that hasn't been gotten to yet.

[Lord Gurgi]

What is "intellectual honesty"?

Subjective. Please elaborate.

[Simenon]

What is "intellectual honesty"?

From a scale of "First Degree" to "Liquefied", how well did Adel burn you?

WARREN G HARDING WAS A NEGRO Y/MAYBE

[Lord Gurgi]

What is "intellectual honesty"?

From a scale of "First Degree" to "Liquefied", how well did Adel burn you?

WARREN G HARDING WAS A NEGRO Y/MAYBE

Not at all.

[Adel]

What is "intellectual honesty"?

Subjective. Please elaborate.

My personal definition is shown in this example::

One of the hallmarks of our great Torah scholars throughout the generations has been the uncompromising loyalty to the concept of intellectual honesty in their writings and commentaries. One would almost take this for granted, for the subject that is being dealt with is Torat Emet -- the Torah of Sinai itself, that to Jews represents ultimate and eternal truth and honesty.

Nevertheless, the temptation to falsify, exaggerate, deny, plagiarize and even commit forgery is a well-known affliction in general academic circles. As such, the unswerving path of intellectual honesty that one finds in the writings of the great Torah scholars is exemplary and inspiring.

The Talmud is replete with incidents of great men who said, "I was wrong," or "I do not know." In fact, it is the mark of intellectual greatness to be able to retract previously strongly held opinions, and as well, to be able to say that one does not know everything. The temptation of scholars, because of their vast knowledge, is to maintain that they know everything. And therefore, they fall into the trap of leaving no question unanswered and no query ignored.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewish ... onesty.asp

What does "intellectual honesty" mean to you?

[Lord Gurgi]

That's it. If you think I'm not being "intellectually honest", I am. Just because opinions differ doesn't mean that any particular one is not truthfully representing what they see and think.

[Adel]

How high would you say that government spending was during the Hoover Administration?

[Lord Gurgi]

How high would you say that government spending was during the Hoover Administration?

Would have to research the specifics, but too high.

[Brandi]

Do you have any kind of accent?

[Adel]

How high would you say that government spending was during the Hoover Administration?

Would have to research the specifics, but too high.

Does it make sense to express federal spending as a % of GDP?
Is there another metric that you think is more appropriate?

[Lord Gurgi]

Do you have any kind of accent?

British, when angry. I also roll my 'r's without noticing sometimes.