cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: about John Galt

The progressives are the one to support issues such as minimum wage to improve their financial viability. Not every one votes in their own self interest.

Highlighted

Re: Delusional

As to timely examples, Willard seems to be an almost perfect archtype.

 

He appears to have the capacity to make huge amounts of money by having completely and unwaveringly accepted a philosophical paradigm which says that the human costs that follow his actions are for the better in some hypothetical universe- and if you don't beleive it look at my net worth ?????

 

Thus having been either born or altered with that part of the human genome missing, it is little surprise that his meanderings strike normal people as off key.

 

Which is actually very interesting insofar as his history doesn't indicate much ideological attachment at all which makes the question of his complete personal self interest feel all the more strange.

 

Brooks is occasionally right and I think he is correct in saying that Romney is the least likeable candidate he's seen. 

 

It is hard to warm up to somebody who is wired up funny.

 

 

Highlighted

Re: about John Galt

No, but of course it is ridiculous to assume that if you lower marginal rates to 0 then revenue will rise to infinity.

 

Revenue diidn't increase under the Bush tax cuts.  It did increase under Reagan but probably more from financial deregulation and the expansionary influence of much larger eficits than directly.

 

Krugman's math probably isn't that bad- if you actually want to optimize revenue the top rate is probably near 70%.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: about John Galt


@kraft-t wrote:

The progressives are the one to support issues such as minimum wage to improve their financial viability. Not every one votes in their own self interest.


They support just enough to keep them in poverty, guaranteeing their vote for the progressives. They [progreesives] give to them [the poor] with tax payer money and take it back again with the federal reserve.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: about John Galt

Jim: "To a certain extent, you may have a point.  But you go to all big conglomerates and employees doing the farming and production will suffer, long term."

 

............................................

 

Been hearing that Jim since the 1950s and for all practical puropses it HAS hapened.  With conglomorates driving the decisons...see pork and poultry.... and the huge farm management for abseentee owner culture.  And the severe trend to  monocultures.

 

And what has happened is that production has exploded.  But production isn't so much the theme of this thread and one of the basic  "rules" of supply side econoimics is that there would be no moral hazzard in some one owning everything.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: BTW Bruce

Was da Vinci irreplaceable?
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: about John Galt

Russia announced today that the income tax for farmers there has been reduced to 0% for the foreseeable future.  Russia also said they would pay a subsidy to farmers of up to over $11/acre.  Not having to pay for a gummint that spends our tax dollars so unwisely would make it much easier to swallow.  Sounds like the Russians have the model plan us farmers should be pushing for here.  Brilliant if you ask me.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Delusional

It's not hard at all to do what the field man says to do.  The farmers who do that eventually find out the hard way that the field man might be getting bonuses or higher commissions to sell you something that is the best fit for his company, not the farmer.  The smaller, part-time farmers tend to do that, not the farmers who are actually operating on a commercial scale.

Highlighted

Re: Delusional

Or to follow a GMO cookbook recipe, hire an agronomist, scouts, marketing assistance, whatever.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: about John Galt

"No, but of course it is ridiculous to assume that if you lower marginal rates to 0 then revenue will rise to infinity." That's not what the laffer curve says, in fact it says the opposite. Didn't you know that?