World Politics

[redtreviso]

""Rove Memo: How To Derail Obama's Jobs Bill, Even When People Want It

Karl Rove’s organization American Crossroads, which functions as a kind of privately run Republican Party organization, has a memo laying out how the party ought to oppose President Obama’s jobs bill. It’s a telling window into the contours of the jobs debate. The specifics of Obama’s proposal are all highly popular, and the Republican challenge is to oppose it anyway. The memo offers a fascinating look at the mechanisms of political spin in general, and the particular dilemma of the Republican Party as it blocks economic action in the face of crisis.

The key fact to understand about the bill, delicately left unmentioned by the American Crossroads memo, is that Americans want to do all the things Obama proposes. By a twenty-point margin, they favor funding new road construction and a payroll tax cut. By a 30-point margin, they agree with higher taxes on the rich to cut the long-term deficit. They support helping stave off layoffs of police officers, firefighters, and teachers by a 50-point margin. How do you fight that?

You redefine the issue as a generalization. People don’t like firing police officers and teachers? Fine, just call them “union workers”:

Similarly, 70% of respondents initially favor Obama’s proposal to “give billions to states to stop layoffs of teachers and firefighters.” But when the same idea is described as “giving billions to states to keep government union workers on the payroll,” 52% turn against the idea.""

 

[VeloCity]

Was this generalization for my benefit?

Heh, no, purely unintentional. Good catch

 

[The Hitch]

Come on, Hitch, that's apples and oranges. There's quite a bit of difference between a news channel manipulating facts and a filmmaker manipulating facts.

If you want to compare Moore to someone on the right, then a more valid comparison would be to Breitbart or that conservative kid (can't remember his name) who makes the gotcha videos.

Im not comparing the 2, I'm comparing the reactions to them. There's a difference.

The 2 things might be different, anyone who reacts with outrage to 1 while offering sainthood to the other, is a hypocrite.

And considering people call moore's films "documentaries" im not buying the moral angle. Documentaries aren't supposed to lie to viewers any more than news channels.

I do not know this Breipart person nor of this conservative kid, but the moment that people appear on this forum glorifying them, and saying such actions are commendable because they "annoy" the other side, my 2 cents will be exactly the same.

 

[The Hitch]

Why are we even talking about these two? Moore and Malkin are fringe elements. They appeal to a hardcore group of followers who already agree with everything they say and are just looking to have their preconceptions reinforced.

I am talking about them because I have been told that Moores films are "well researched" and that since i disapprove of such tactics I

1 I should stay away from Us politics,
2 "Dont know jack ****"
3 and some stalinist "with us or against us" logic about how I am a right winger targeted for anger in the mans films.

I would like nothing more than for these types of people not to recieve the attention they crave.

I do not enjoy talking about them.

But when they are held up as some sort of saints, and oppoonents of their filthy tactics ridiculed as stupid, I will make my point.

As someone on the left, I think Moore raises some valid issues - gun control (or lack thereof), health care, etc - and I agree with his basic stand on most of them. But - like Malkin (or Hannity or O'Reilly etc) - he presents incredibly complicated, complex issues in a hammer-over-the-head, simplistic way that leaves no room for nuance.

I think America would be far better off with less guns, and widespread health coverage too when scum like Moore take up these issues, it makes me want to puke.

I still support the issues, but he and his ilk should not be credited with anything other than destroying political debate.

..you see, the sin that Moore seems to have committed here is what in the film industry is called a cross-cut ( a form of editing that helps tell the story the film-maker is trying to tell...and by the way, they all tell stories, that is basically what they do.. )....and as such, it is simply part of the film making vocabulary...now if you look around you will find that everybody edits film...so by your terms do they all tell lies?

...but the problem here is that in absolute terms every edit ever made is a lie because they all break the bond between the edited piece and the structure within which it was originally embedded....in much the same way, quotations are also, in absolute terms, lies....

...so what exactly are you accusing Moore of doing?....of being a film-maker who uses standard film making vocabulary to tell a story?...or having the audacity to a have a view that is different than yours?...

... ...so in my ever so humble opinion, I think, that upon a second sober look, your self styled unassailable point is just more of the Pretentious Puffery that are you so renowned for...

Cheers

blutto

Actually most films use their own footage.

Taking real life footage and mixing it together to make it look like something that never happened, did, is not acceptable.

Especially for "documentaries".

 

[The Hitch]

..you see, the sin that Moore seems to have committed here is what in the film industry is called a cross-cut ( a form of editing that helps tell the story the film-maker is trying to tell...and by the way, they all tell stories, that is basically what they do.. )....and as such, it is simply part of the film making vocabulary...now if you look around you will find that everybody edits film...so by your terms do they all tell lies?

...but the problem here is that in absolute terms every edit ever made is a lie because they all break the bond between the edited piece and the structure within which it was originally embedded....in much the same way, quotations are also, in absolute terms, lies....

...so what exactly are you accusing Moore of doing?....of being a film-maker who uses standard film making vocabulary to tell a story?...or having the audacity to a have a view that is different than yours?...

... ...so in my ever so humble opinion, I think, that upon a second sober look, your self styled unassailable point is just more of the Pretentious Puffery that are you so renowned for...

Cheers

blutto

Actually most films use their own footage.

Taking real life footage and mixing it together to make it look like something that never happened, did, is not acceptable.

Especially for "documentaries".

 

[El Pistolero]

Heh, no. In that post I was mostly referring to the hardcore extremists on both sides - on the left it would be the anarchists, communists, true Marxists, etc (ie not the conservative "Obama is a Marxist").

Which raises a point: scott accuses the left of throwing around terms like "racist" to the point where they become essentially meaningless, but couldn't one say the same of the right tossing around terms like "Marxist" or "socialist"? Conservatives don't seem to have much problem with labeling everyone on the left as such.

It's quite funny how in the US Obama is called a Marxist while in Belgium for example he'd be called center right.

 

[redtreviso]

I am talking about them because I have been told that Moores films are "well researched" and that since i disapprove of such tactics I

1 I should stay away from Us politics,
2 "Dont know jack ****"
3 and some stalinist "with us or against us" logic about how I am a right winger targeted for anger in the mans films.

I would like nothing more than for these types of people not to recieve the attention they crave.

I do not enjoy talking about them.

But when they are held up as some sort of saints, and oppoonents of their filthy tactics ridiculed as stupid, I will make my point.



I think America would be far better off with less guns, and widespread health coverage too when scum like Moore take up these issues, it makes me want to puke.

I still support the issues, but he and his ilk should not be credited with anything other than destroying political debate.

When Michael Moore has his own network news channel to offer his opinion 24/7 let us know..

""“You’re blowing it with Fox News,” Jobs told him over dinner. “The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you’ve cast your lot with the destructive people. Fox has become an incredibly destructive force in our society. You can be better, and this is going to be your legacy if you’re not careful.”"" Steve Jobs to Rupert Murdoch

Murdoch's legacy is destructive. not careful? Why would Jobs think the aussie Murdoch would be careful not to be a destructive influence in the US?

 

[redtreviso]

global warming debunked..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights?xrs=share_copy

 

[The Hitch]

You waded in with the above, having decided that I was an 'apologist'.

This is an unfortunate misunderstanding but no, the term apologist was not directed at you.

I read 1 post from El Pistolero - the only reason I came into the thread anyway, was because I was surprised to see it said that his was the last post. I do not read the Politics thread too much, but entered because I saw Pisti on the thread.

The post reffered to Michael Moore. You were not quoted in the post. You were not on that page in the thread either.

So I responded to the topic of Michael Moore and I certainatly did not direct the term apologist at you.

.....which, as Velocity pointed out, was indeed comparing apples with oranges. Michael Moore is a polemical film maker who regularly exaggerates, as well as using hyperbole and yes, even some sneaky tricks to make sure that his viewers are getting his intended message. He is a film maker, he's allowed to do that. Fox News claims to be a source of news. They are not allowed to use the same tricks and dress them up as fact. The basic facts and accusations underlying his films about gun control, health care, and what unbridled US capitalism has done to the country, are beyond dispute (unless you're a right winger with blinkers on).

His films attack conditions that, imho, deserve to be attacked because they are shameful and wrong. Charlton Heston deserved to be brought down a peg; I have no problem with MM using different edited bits of film to get his message across, or with him making money from his films. Or did you really think that your 'discovery' of different shirts in different clips was one of those 'Eureka' moments?

As for our relative understanding (or lack thereof) of the world we live in, and what I might think about yours - yes, I suspect that my age and background (when compared to what I know about yours) probably gives me greater insight into certain things, US politics and life being one of those. That doesn't necessarily make me smarter or necessarily more correct, it just means that I may have more knowledge and experience on which to base an informed opinion. Just as I have no problem with recognizing that your knowledge of cycling is far deeper and broader than mine. As far as I can tell, you are happy to pontificate on just about any subject that comes along. I stick to pontificating about things that I actually know something about.

Ive followed US politics for many years, please do not talk down to me like I dont know what I am talking about. Far more than I have followed cycling. While I appreciate your compliments on my cycling knowledge, my heavy post-count on the forum should not be mistaken for knowledge.

In fact 1 of the major reasons why I began to focus so much on cycling, was because I found that US Politics, and world politics were far too stressful subjects to be spending 5 hours a day reading about, and wanted to get away from it for a few years, and choose as a major interest something far less stressful - cycling.

Saying that i "most likely no jack ****" about a subject and that I must be a "right winger" based on a post where I pointed out that Moore is a liar, were insults.


As for the comment about how you feel your age might make you more qualified, well you might want to consider that people tend to swing slightly to the right as they grow older. Conservative at 20 no heart, Socialist at 30 no brain, goes the joke. GOP carry the 55 and over groups like the Democrats carry the 35 and under ones, by landslides. So if we were to take the view that being older makes one more qualified to speak on a subject, you might find such a proposition to be quite annoying actually

Now for the Moore bit.

The Charlton Heston image is just an example, and spin it anyway you want, it proves that he is lying. There are countless other such lies, the image is the easiest to use because it doesnt require much explanation, the image is right there in front of you.

Another example from the same couple of minutes was how when he showed a clip of Heston and in the background says that the rally took place in Colorado a week after the masssacre as a NRA **** you to the victims of Columbine, when in fact the clip was from a year later, on a rally on the other side of America.

But like I said, I use the image because it doesnt need a paragraph of explanation.

As for the bit about how its ok because its a film, well Moores film is not a Hollywood blockbuster. It is presented as fact, called a documentary and tells the story of real life events. As such, him mixing 2 clips of what Heston said into 1, is not the same as Lord of the Rings deciding to cut Saruman from the 3rd film.

The Charlton Heston bit is just the tip of the iceberg anyway. Moore does everything from giving false dates, false locations, wrongly identifying people, to editing election footage,,presenting letter to the editor letters as newspaper editorials, presenting public documents as private ones, etc etc etc.

Whether you believe they deserve to be attacked does not suddenly make such tactics acceptable.

I do not comment on this thread much, I certainatly do not enjoy getting into such heated discussions, as I said, I am on the forum, partly to get away from US politics in the first place, but I felt that bit about Moore and anyone else who uses such cheap tactics, had to be said, regardless of who it might turn against me.

You would find that on 80 % of issues in American Politics I would probably agree with you, and its not moores political stance i despise, its him and his tactics.

And I would appreciate it if in the future, should I chime in with those other 20%, i get a calmer response.

Till then, enjoy the thread

It's quite funny how in the US Obama is called a Marxist while in Belgium for example he'd be called center right.

Hes only called a Marxist by a few idiots, not by the entire population.

Judging by the success of Skinhead racist parties in Europe, Im pretty sure there are quite a few of these idiots on the European continent too

 

[El Pistolero]

Most of the Republicans would say he's a socialist though, while in Belgium, he'd be right win. Social welfare in the USA is at a pretty low level compared to some European countries, I guess that's the reason for it.

 

[ramjambunath]

Tunisia's Ennahdha declared election winner

Tunisia's Islamist Ennahdha party has won historic democratic elections with 41.47 per cent of votes cast, nine months after the toppling of dictator Zine el Abidine Ben Ali.

The party obtained 90 seats in a new 217-member assembly that will rewrite the constitution, appoint a president and form a caretaker government, elections chief Kamel Jendoubi told journalists in Tunis on Thursday.


"We will continue this revolution to realise its aims of a Tunisia that is free, independent, developing and prosperous in which the rights of God, the Prophet, women, men, the religious and the non-religious are assured because Tunisia is for everyone," Ghannouchi told a crowd of supporters.

The leftist Congress for the Republic (CPR) was in second place with 13.82 per cent, representing 30 seats, and Ettakatol third with 9.68 per cent or 21 seats, he said.

However, protests linked to the party placing fourth in Sunday's voting erupted in and around Sidi Bouzid, the town where the uprising that drove this North African nation's strongman from power.

The leader of Areedha Chaabiya, or Popular List party, Hachmi Hamdi, announced on national television that he was withdrawing the 19 seats his party won after the electoral commission invalidated six of its lists.

More than 2,000 young people marched on the Sidi Bouzid headquarters of Ennahdha, the election victor, and pelted security forces with stones after they learned of the list nullification.

"The reason why they're doing this is that [election officials] announced they were cancelling the seats the popular Hamdi had won," Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri reported from Tunis.

Our correspondent said the election official body claimed to have done so due to violations of the "electoral code".

Ennahda has sought to reassure secularists and investors, nervous about the prospect of Islamists holding power in one of the Arab world's most liberal countries, by saying it would not ban alcohol, stop tourists wearing bikinis on the beaches or impose Islamic banking.

Foreign tourism is a major source of revenue for Tunisia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15487647

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011102721287933474.html

90 out of 217 seats, there's room for pretty large second and third parties. As such, proportional representation makes sense now considering the constitution hasn't been framed yet and hegemony of one party over the others would lead to a weak constitution.

One of the questions is, what will be the role of the president in the interim govt which will be formed in the coming days. Will he be a man who has powers similar to what the US and Russian presidents exercise in their countries or will he be a titular head similar to what we have here. I suspect (and hope) it might be the latter as there weren't specific elections for the president and is appointed.

 

[ramjambunath]

One of the only substantial things that's happening in the Common Wealth Heads of Governmant Meeting

Australia's govt decided not to sell Uranium to India on the pretense that India hadn't signed the CTBT, when the treaty between India and most of the world's powers was signed for the civilian nuclear deal a few years ago.

Vice-President Hamid Ansari arrived here for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) even as Foreign Ministers wrapped up their preliminary discussions amid debate and disagreement on how to make the 54-nation grouping relevant in a changing world.

Informal, behind-the-scenes diplomacy is a key part of the CHOGM summits, and India seemed to be using the opportunity to lobby for a change in Australia's uranium exports policy banning sales to India, which is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The issue reportedly came up at Mr. Ansari's meeting with Australian Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott on Thursday. Mr. Abbott heads the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia, which favours allowing Australia — which has the world's largest reserves of uranium — to export the mineral to India.

“If the [Australian] government was serious about reducing global emissions, they would lift the ban on selling uranium to India,” he told Australian broadcaster ABC.

Of course Kevin Rudd, who was PM when the treaties were signed has a different opinion.

“If you hear an argument from an Indian businessperson that the future of the nuclear industry in India depends exclusively on access to uranium, that is simply not sustainable as a proposition. Have a look at the data,” he said at a mining industry breakfast, according to a report by Australian news agency AAP. Both Indian officials and businessmen have been raising the issue on the sidelines of the CHOGM. “There is no problem in terms of global supply, let's just be very, very blunt about this.”

Personally, I hope India can increase its civil nuclear power capacity, just to reduce the crippling power cuts in the country. Many parts of rural India aren't even electrified and with many nuclear plants coming up, this can help alleviate the problems faced by many parts of the nation and if importing Uranium from a reluctant Australia is required for that, then it should be tried.

Elsewhere

Ahead of Friday's inauguration of the CHOGM by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, there is a strong push among some countries for adoption of a Commonwealth reform recommendation to set up a human rights monitor. The Vice-President is expected to reiterate India's viewpoint that such a move duplicates the work of the U.N. and is especially unnecessary in the light of the group's funding woes.

Sri Lanka's human rights record and alleged war crimes by government forces in its civil war against the LTTE has been the target of attention here. Some countries are lobbying to reconsider the island nation as the host of the next CHOGM summit — Canada has actually vowed to boycott the next meet if the Sri Lankan government does not shape up — but Mr. Ansari indicated that India would hold firm against such pressures.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574653.ece

Excesses were most likely committed, but it's easy for a country facing no separatist threats to be pompous about human rights.

Edit: Given my comments on the Libyan NTC, I have to correct the above statement to a small extent and say that there should be a UN investigation under the guidance of the UNHCR and claim of the protocols of the Geneva convention being broken should be verified and requisite action to be taken.

 

[Amsterhammer]

This is an unfortunate misunderstanding but no, the term apologist was not directed at you.....

So I responded to the topic of Michael Moore and I certainatly did not direct the term apologist at you.

Ive followed US politics for many years, please do not talk down to me like I dont know what I am talking about. Far more than I have followed cycling. While I appreciate your compliments on my cycling knowledge, my heavy post-count on the forum should not be mistaken for knowledge.

In fact 1 of the major reasons why I began to focus so much on cycling, was because I found that US Politics, and world politics were far too stressful subjects to be spending 5 hours a day reading about, and wanted to get away from it for a few years, and choose as a major interest something far less stressful - cycling.

You would find that on 80 % of issues in American Politics I would probably agree with you, and its not moores political stance i despise, its him and his tactics.

And I would appreciate it if in the future, should I chime in with those other 20%, i get a calmer response.

Till then, enjoy the thread

Thank you for this. I would certainly dissuade anyone from spending five hours a day reading about US and/or global politics, unless it's part of a study leading somewhere.

I am glad to hear that we are likely to agree on most issues and I am certainly not prepared to defend Michael Moore to the death...perhaps my reaction was a little hasty and I am happy to unreservedly withdraw my jack ***t comment.

Strangely, I appear to be becoming more radical as I get older, but I suspect that has more to do with the current state of affairs than anything else.

We're good.

 

[Bala Verde]

I think I posted about FINRA already, the 'self-policing organization for brokers and stock markets'... Works great:

FINRA:

misled the government by altering documents sought by federal regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Thursday.

It was the third time in eight years that FINRA employees have given SEC inspectors altered or misleading documents, the agency said. Similar episodes occurred in 2004 and 2005, the SEC said.

and given the budget squeeze, some bright bulbs are floating this idea:

The SEC and members of Congress have recently been considering outsourcing some of the agency’s functions to FINRA, and FINRA has welcomed the chance.

source

No one posted this yet? On how the neo-liberal system is skewed to favor the political and economic elite? In other words, the system is definitely working - as a tool to increase prosperity - but not for everyone.

Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds

In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.

By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.

I guess capital gains taxes finally need to be equalized to the level of income taxes, i.e. up. No more "affirmative action" for the poor "job creators", who only "invest" because they get tax breaks. (They invest because they see an opportunity, a good business model, a future profitable organization, not because they get a tax cut.. Unless they speculate (read gamble), and then they don't deserve a tax break)

Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.

Specifically the report made these points:

¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.

¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.

¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.

¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007.

A large, weak and over-leveraged segment of the population does not contribute to sustainable economic growth. Income inequality matters, and the current system appears to be unable to address that; it actually seems to do the reverse, it aggravates inequality.

 

[redtreviso]

I think I posted about FINRA already, the 'self-policing organization for brokers and stock markets'... Works great:

FINRA:




and given the budget squeeze, some bright bulbs are floating this idea:



source

FINRA sign offs protect brokers from the SEC...There's probably thousands of Bernie Madoffs who have paid FINRA people for their stamp of approval and the shelter from the SEC that it provides.

 

[redtreviso]

 

[Anonymous]

I think I posted about FINRA already, the 'self-policing organization for brokers and stock markets'... Works great:

FINRA:




and given the budget squeeze, some bright bulbs are floating this idea:



source

No one posted this yet? On how the neo-liberal system is skewed to favor the political and economic elite? In other words, the system is definitely working - as a tool to increase prosperity - but not for everyone.

Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds



I guess capital gains taxes finally need to be equalized to the level of income taxes, i.e. up. No more "affirmative action" for the poor "job creators", who only "invest" because they get tax breaks. (They invest because they see an opportunity, a good business model, a future profitable organization, not because they get a tax cut.. Unless they speculate (read gamble), and then they don't deserve a tax break)





A large, weak and over-leveraged segment of the population does not contribute to sustainable economic growth. Income inequality matters, and the current system appears to be unable to address that; it actually seems to do the reverse, it aggravates inequality.

In your view, what rate should Cap Gains be taxed? Ordinary income rates? Higher? Lower?

What about investments in national priorities.... green technology for example?

 

[redtreviso]

'Occupy Wall Street' is about saying "No."

"No" to institutionalized greed of such vast width and breadth that it plunders our country even as it smiles around a mouthful of filet mignon.

"No" to the ocean of corporate cash that drowns our democracy.

"No" to rewarding the failure of frauds who proudly carry the banner of capitalism even as they enjoy the galloping socialism of the government bailout.

"No" to those who refuse to hire new employees because they want to screw over the economy and remove a president they don't like..

http://www.truth-out.org/then-they-fight-you/1319744739

 

[redtreviso]

In your view, what rate should Cap Gains be taxed? Ordinary income rates? Higher? Lower?

What about investments in national priorities.... green technology for example?

There should be a special Scotty rate..cuz he's so special.

Capital Gains on compensation awarded instead of conventional income should be taxed WAY higher.. The CEO might work for a 1 dollar a year and get 25 million in retroactive options that instantly are long term gains @ 15%.. This is bull sh----- and you know it scott..So go ahead and act like this concerns you and you aren't poodling for the gifted stock options package class.

 

[Bala Verde]

In your view, what rate should Cap Gains be taxed? Ordinary income rates? Higher? Lower?

What about investments in national priorities.... green technology for example?

exactly the same. And for national priorities, you would first have to analyze the sector and see what subsidies and tax breaks and other externalities (already) distort the market. So, hypothetically, in your green tech example, you would analyze the energy sector and look at all aspects to optimize the delivery of energy, affordable, reliable and "sustainable".

Look at requirements, such as base load, peak load, current grid conditions, externalities such as pollution, which are ultimately borne by society at large, or exemption from regulations that other segments are subject to (i.e. fracking/shale gas extraction has been exempted from various regulations to "jump start the industry", does that mean that to become competitive green tech should also be subsidized in another way, through monetary subsidies? Then at what level should they be, at the level of the current oil industry, who might also be profiting from low capital gains taxes v. new tech companies who haven't achieved certain economies of scale). If you use a carbon tax, or for cars, a fuel tax (which currently is lower than 7 years ago; the price of gasoline consists of 11% taxes = 40ct, whereas in 2004 it was 23%=43cts. The price of gas is high because of a jump in global demand, which could spur R&D investments in different fuels, or tech to improve oil extraction) to incorporate negative externalities (polluter pays), you don't necessarily need to subsidize green tech, because there is a level playing field.

If there is level playing field, investors will invest in green tech (and other energy services), because they know the game is not rigged, they will be able to naturally make a profit on their investments, and they don't need to get a tax break to encourage them to make that initial investment.

 

[fatandfast]

if you want to jump start all industries, we probably should stop planning and producing F35's, aircraft carriers and armored vehicles. All have become obsolete
to date and the cash kicked into everything surrounding them would be a good jump start for a nonmilitary future, maybe some non bullet bomb industry we can all agree on.

 

[ChrisE]

if you want to jump start all industries, we probably should stop planning and producing F35's, aircraft carriers and armored vehicles. All have become obsolete
to date and the cash kicked into everything surrounding them would be a good jump start for a nonmilitary future, maybe some non bullet bomb industry we can all agree on.

I agree. Let's put 50% of the budget sustaining the military/industrial complex into tax breaks for the porn industry.

 

[Anonymous]

exactly the same. And for national priorities, you would first have to analyze the sector and see what subsidies and tax breaks and other externalities (already) distort the market. So, hypothetically, in your green tech example, you would analyze the energy sector and look at all aspects to optimize the delivery of energy, affordable, reliable and "sustainable".

Look at requirements, such as base load, peak load, current grid conditions, externalities such as pollution, which are ultimately borne by society at large, or exemption from regulations that other segments are subject to (i.e. fracking/shale gas extraction has been exempted from various regulations to "jump start the industry", does that mean that to become competitive green tech should also be subsidized in another way, through monetary subsidies? Then at what level should they be, at the level of the current oil industry, who might also be profiting from low capital gains taxes v. new tech companies who haven't achieved certain economies of scale). If you use a carbon tax, or for cars, a fuel tax (which currently is lower than 7 years ago; the price of gasoline consists of 11% taxes = 40ct, whereas in 2004 it was 23%=43cts. The price of gas is high because of a jump in global demand, which could spur R&D investments in different fuels, or tech to improve oil extraction) to incorporate negative externalities (polluter pays), you don't necessarily need to subsidize green tech, because there is a level playing field.

If there is level playing field, investors will invest in green tech (and other energy services), because they know the game is not rigged, they will be able to naturally make a profit on their investments, and they don't need to get a tax break to encourage them to make that initial investment.

I don't have a problem with your point on cap gains. If ordinary income tax rates are kept reasonable then I see no real reason not to have cap gains taxed at that rate. The way right will point out that the invested money has already been taxed (which is true) but the way forward (imo) is to simplify. Cap Gains taxed at the same rate as income would certainly be simple.

I'm not a big fan of cap and tax.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

10 Year Government Bonds! Exciting huh? You Bet.

Italy's latest yield is 5.99%. That is how much in interest per year they'll have to pay someone who loans them money for 10 years.

Given that Eurozone interest rates are negligible, there is a sort of rule of thumb which says that as yields approach 5% the nation's finances are getting close to the cliff edge. As they go over 5.5% they are starting to lose their footing, over 6% they're clinging on for grim death and over 7%, it's just a case of waiting for the splat.

All this talk of dominoes, Greece to impact on Spain, Portugal Ireland etc misses the point. The above are teeny little dominoes which maybe could knock over bigger ones with a following wind. But there are two huge dominoes right next to each other and one is wobbling severely, that's Italy. The other is France who are massively exposed to Italian debt, far more than any other nation.

One-two, goodbye to the EU.

 

[VeloCity]

externalities such as pollution, which are ultimately borne by society at large, or exemption from regulations that other segments are subject to (i.e. fracking/shale gas extraction has been exempted from various regulations to "jump start the industry"

As an aside, negative externalities are a good example of why we need to move away from relying on GDP as our primary metric of growth and well-being. If we started using alternative benchmarks that aren't simply quantitative, people would have a better understanding of the full impacts of deregulation, for eg on ecosystem services.