Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan


"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o3upi1tibh79r0tkb3oiu4jhcjhl8j529u@xxxxxxxxxx

>>Right, and the client calls in and speaks to the first agent but doesn't
>>like the sound of his voice so he hangs up and calls later. There is no
>>question that there are infinite variables into what occurs in every day
>>events, thus its completely impossible for any human to ever be able to
>>adequately assess what is fair. The best we can do is continue to strive
>>for equality of opportunity.
>>
>>
> You got the first half right and the second half wrong. It is
> impossible to ascertain if the opportunities were equal. That half is
> right. But it is nutty to conclude that we should base taxation on
> something that is impossible to ascertain. We can ascertain outcomes,
> so that is necessarily the basis for taxation.
>

You seem to have difficulty then ascertaining the difference between
opportunity and circumstance. It is not possible to control circumstance,
nor is it even possible to judge circumstance, thus making any judgment in
regards to it inherently flawed. While circumstance and opportunity are
intertwined, assuming that both are one in the same overlooks the simple
fact that maintaining equality of opportunity is the ONLY true method of
assuring fairness.



> You keep forgetting that you are the one who wants to base taxation on
> opportunities. I want to tax outcomes --- and I want to do so in a way
> that makes the outcomes less unequal.

That is a complelte misrepresentation of anything I have said here.
However, when you suggest you want to make the outcomes less unequal without
being able to ddetemrine what makes those outcoems unequal in the first
place (as evicended by the exmpales), you are essentially saying you want to
judge without knowing the facts.

The perfect example of this is the case of the agent with daddy's money. If
he is more successful than the agent who has no financial support from his
family, you happily go ahead and tax him at a higher rate on the basis that
his circumstances were more beneficial. However, if the one without the
benefits of financial support were to be the more successful, you again
would tax that person in lieu of the fact that the one living off his family's
money had better financial support. Thus, the basis of using circumstances
to determine fairness is not only flawed, it can be 100% in direct
opposition to its findings based on any number of factors. Thus, the only
one factor you can control is to assure the opportunity is equal.


> True, I can't be certain and did not claim to be. But I do know the US
> economy did marvelously well, the envy of the world, yada yada. So if
> any stifling took place, it was not a very high cost and well worth
> paying for increased equality.

The fact that the nation was successful in lieu of higher taxes or in lieu
of what any other nation achieved does not prove that it might not have been
more successful with a more balanced approach.



>
>
>>As far as the safeties net of welfare, again, i must reiterate that
>>it is YOUR definition that it should include monetary handouts, not mine.
>>I
>>advocate a safety net that focuses on making the poor more valued members
>>of
>>society that can support themselves, which costs money but does not
>>include
>>redistributing that money directly to the poor. You could certainly have
>>programs set up to provide opportunities for the poor to enter into more
>>productive roles, and there would be no reason to limit these programs to
>>only the poor, there would just be no real reason for anyone but the poor
>>to
>>take advantage of them. Again, if you want to have a discussion on how to
>>reform welfare, lets at least start a new thread as I think that could be
>>a
>>very rewarding topic.
>
> I see. So you don't like Social Security. You deal with sick people,
> not by helping them with their medical bills, but by making them feel
> valued. But yes, that is a different thread.
>

If you are going to continue to imply that I have stated things that I
clearly have not, then shall we assume you are no longer able to support
your position?



Once again, my definition of welfare does not include handouts. If you
consider social security and Medicare handouts that is your definition. In
addition, my definition of welfare includes opportunity for anyone to take
part if they wish, a point you have glossed over without touching upon but a
point nonetheless that promotes more fairness than anything you have
proposed.



>>> Really? That is your view of society? Did C had a choice whether to
>>> have a sick mother? Would it matter to you if C, when she had her
>>> kids, was married to some guy who ran off with someone else and left
>>> her in the lurch?
>>
>>Should I be to blame then for who poor choice in husbands? Really, do you
>>honestly feel that she would have a right to take from someone else
>>because
>>she chose a husband that eventually ran out on her. What ever happened to
>>personable accountability and responsibility.
>
> That's your view --- blame the victim? And what about the sick mother?

How are you certain the wife is the victim in such a case? Certainly there
are more than one person in a marriage and generally the blame isn't one
sided. But more to the point, if indeed she is a victim, as there are many
cases of such, why should this have any bearing on adjusting opportunities?
This is a case of circumstance, and a social concern for caring for those
with poor circumstances is more adept at handing out fairness than is
adjusting opportunities based on the impossibility of judging circumstances.



The same applies for the sick mother. Unless you take issue with having
social programs to assist with poor circumstances, a system open to all
people, then there is no bearing on opportunity. You seem to forget by
attempting to include me with some nutty rightwing propaganda, I am not at
all opposed to many social benefits to assist in circumstances. I am
certainly opposed to the current methodology and the current levels of waste
and thinking in government that prevent us from having a more effective
system of dealing with such problems; however, getting back to topic, this
is an entirely different issue that should only be supported in addition to
the view of assuring equal opportunity for all.





>
> Anyway, I'm not blaming you for bad results. I'm explaining to you why
> opportunities are not equal.

No, you are doing a fine job of making the point that circumstances are
never equal, and thus the impossibility to even begin to recognize what
circumstances have any affect on outcomes. You have not begun to make any
explanation on why any of the opportunities differ in the previous examples,
which is in fact because they are all identical. But yet again, a point you
seem to hash over time and time again, if the circumstances are so
impossible to determine due to the infinite number of variables that affect
circumstance, then its illogical to suggest anyone could make a reliable
judgment on administering fairness based on circumstance, which leads back
to the fact that we can only control equality of opportunity.




>>
>>Let me ask you, the sick mother that must be supported...if C goes on to
>>be
>>successful yet someone with perfectly healthy parents ends up being a
>>failure, do you honestly believe that one should have a right to take from
>>C
>>even though she had a sick mother????
>
> Of course.
>

....which essentially means that using the basis of a sick mother to
determine fairness had no relevance to the situation, because you would just
as quickly punish either party no matter what the circumstance. This of
course counters your entire point being that you asserted that it would be
unfair on the basis that she had a sick mother, and offers further proof
that attempting to administer fairness on the basis of circumstance in
unreliable and illogical.





>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do find it amusing that some people seem to view children as
>>> providing no social benefit. Perhaps you (not you personally, of
>>> course) will change your view when my kids (not my kids personally, of
>>> course) are paying for your social security
>>
>>Children are dependable financially until they are able to provide for
>>themselves. Unless you are advocating putting young children to work,
>>there
>>is no way economically they are adding to society as children, Nice try
>>though.
>
> Your point escapes me.

The point was what value children offer economically to society, whereas
your statement insisted they do. My point is that children are dependants
up until the point they are able to support themselves. Thus, your point
was clearly wrong, and not very relevant to the issue at hand anyhow.




>>
>>Oh, and prior to this post you said it had to do with money. Let's go
>>back
>>to risk for a moment. Risk has with it 2 sides, and risk is certainly no
>>guarantee of any success. In fact, when considering the low percentage of
>>business successes, it would seem obvious that more often than not the
>>risk
>>taker winds up losing rather than gaining. So in all accounts, the non
>>risk
>>taker who stands less of a chance of making themselves a large success
>>also
>>stands a far greater chance of not ending up in financial ruin, temporary
>>or
>>permanent. Success involves many more components that risk.
>
> Good. That was my point.


So your point was to bring up the fact that judging someone on their ability
to take risk is flawed. Well good then, you are coming along. Judging
anyone on any ability other than by offering equal opportunity is flawed.
So at least we agree.


> No, to repeat, YOU are the one who wants to have equal opportunities.
> I think that is nutty --- cannot happen. So I want to equalize
> outcomes, or at least mitigate the inequalities. We can measure
> outcomes. So, my system works and yours doesn't. Get the picture?

For clarity sake, why don't you go back to any of the agent/coordinator
examples and point out ANY inequality in opportunity. You will find with a
little bit of thought that the only difference you can point are of
circumstance, not with opportunity. At that point it is not difficult to
understand that attempting to make any assessment of fairness based on
circumstance as oppose to opportunity is illogical.



>>I am not claiming anyone is equal, in fact, if anything I would claim that
>>every single person is unequal. But to suggest there is anyway to
>>determine
>>some sort of equality in people in any other manner than just offering
>>them
>>the same opportunity is complexly illogical.
>>
> You have said a thousand times that you are for equal opportunities.
> That is your standard of fairness. How do you offer people the same
> opportunities when they are unequal and have unequal opportunities?
> Your position is nuts.

Yet again, once you are able to comprehend the difference between
circumstance and opportunity, the point will be clear to you. See above.




>>This is yet another fallacy. If you have evidence that the majority of
>>high
>>income earners golf on Wednesdays then go ahead and post your reference,
>>but
>>the reality is that is just a baseless comment as it insults the many high
>>income earners, and doctors more precisely, who work extensively long
>>hours
>>to earn their respective pay.
>
> I was illustrating the meaning of an economic term. Don't be
> nonsensical.

No, this was a board assumption of high income earners with no basis
whatsoever. You may not want to retract it for whatever reason, but it is
what it is.



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> You think that a rich kid has the same opportunities as a poor kid?
>>>>> What planet are you from? All us carbon units understand that there is
>>>>> huge inequality in opportunities everywhere, based on difference in
>>>>> genes, upbringing, family wealth and influence, on and on. Do you
>>>>> really disagree?
>>>>>
>>> No response? Okay.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Because he has more money, and he "earned" that money through social
>>>>> actions. He did not invent taxi cabs or build the roads on which the
>>>>> cabs travel or create the economic opportunities that would make
>>>>> people want to take a cab, etc. ,etc. so society has a claim to a
>>>>> portion of his income, and the bigger the income, the bigger the
>>>>> claim. However, the social claim is not as strong as it is with
>>>>> millionaires and billionaires, who also exploited the system in one
>>>>> way or another (and I am assuming legal exploitation through some
>>>>> economic rent).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, if you are of the beleif that the more one becomes success the
>>>>more
>>>>one exploits others, then we are never going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>> Do you understand the concept of economic rents? I'm mainstream here.
>>> I'm not asserting that the rich always exploit people --- but I am
>>> saying that they exploit some economic rent.
>>
>>And by that account there are many poor who exploit the rich by revising
>>welfare benefits they don't need. It human nature that there will be
>>exploiters, but don't kid yourself that its among only one class of
>>people.
>>
>
> The poor, by definition, are not in a position to exploit economic
> rents. You apparently do not know what that means and are embarrassed
> to ask, having pretended to know a lot about economics. However, I do
> not believe and do not suggest that only the rich are venal or that
> all or most rich people are venal. That was not the point.
>

No, you bring up a point that offers no counter to the discussion of
equality of opportunity. Economic rent is not more a benefit to the rich as
is compound interest. The fact that anyone has the opportunity to grow to a
position to reap the benefits of either is more an argument asserting the
benefits of equality of opportunity than opposing it. You seem to hold so
strongly to the belief that you don't have the same opportunities as those
who have achieved much more than you, but perhaps it is more to do with the
fact that either you do not know in truth what it took to achieve those
results, or you choose to not attempt to understand them.


>>> I don't know what this means. But Liberals do favor the market. We
>>> just want to adjust market outcomes for what we perceive to be some
>>> unfair outcomes.
>>>
>>
>>Nail on the head! You want to adjust the market based on what you
>>PERCEIVE
>>to be fair/unfair and if you get anything from reading in this group you
>>hopefully will understand that its inconceivable to think that anyone
>>could
>>possibly understand how to distribute equality other than in opportunity
>>as
>>there are an infinite amount of variables most of which are intangibles
>>that
>>go into human life. Unless of course you think you are of the level of a
>>god?
>
> Yes, I happen to think I am on the level of a god. Or maybe not. Well,
> at most a very small, not too powerful god. More like a super hero,
> such as Beowulf or Godzilla.

Well this might explain some of your thinking anyway. Hold on, I know a
good Doc you can call that offers help with that...



>
> Outcomes are easy to measure, opportunities are impossible to measure.

Moreover, circumstances are impossible to measure. Giving eveyone the same
opportunity is generally far easier to administer.


> I want to promote equality of outcomes, and you want to promote

But outcomes are not a reliable source of fairness. First off, you can
never be certain what circumstances added or detracted form the outcomes,
and you MOST DEFINITLEY can never know with any certainty if ones greater
circumstance was achieved through a bigger effort into personal achievement,
which would offer the biggest level of unfairness by treating that person
with any more burden than the other who was less interested in achievement.
This of course is the whole point. If you want to make judgments on
circumstance, something you cannot measure, or outcomes, something you
cannot measure, you are sure to never be able to apply fairness. Thus,
assuring the same opportunity exists for everyone is the only applicable
way.


>>
>>I am sure there are thousands in the state of Washington that would take
>>issue with that statement.
>
> Thousands is a very small number for a $200 billion company.

Thousands was also an arbitrary number, as I do not have firsthand knowledge
of how many are employed. I do know with a good level of certainly that
there is quite a significant amount, and among those there are a LOT of high
income earners, who thus must spend a lot of money in the state of
Washington thus proving plenty of opportunity for others not even associated
with Microsoft. The level of benefit that it has brought to society in that
area alone is immeasurable...not to mention the efficiency the company has
help bring to the personal computer market that has benefits that go on and
on and on.



>>
>>
>>
>>> the jobs it destroyed and the innovations it has inhibited through
>>> what the courts have found to be illegal monopoly practices. I'll say
>>
>>Microsoft paid for any wrongdoings it was proven to have committed. If
>>you
>>don't think it was enough, then you have issue with the legal system, not
>>Microsoft.
>
> As I said, I don't have an issue with Microsoft. I'm just pointing out
> that your claims about jobs are overblown and offset, at least in
> part, by its destructive practices. And not all of its destructive
> practices are illegal.

Well again, if you believe there are destructive practices that are legal,
then that is an issue with the legal system.


> My idea is Linux <g>. "If you're sick of the unreliability, the bloat,
> the insecurity, and the perpetual upgrading associated with Microsoft
> products you'll be happy to know that there are some excellent
> alternatives out there."
>
> Of course, it is hard to beat a monopoly.

That of course is also baloney. For every billion Microsoft has stocked up
to fight its competition there is at least a hundred billion waiting in the
wings among venture capitals and other seed money worldwide eagerly waiting
for the next big idea. Certainly if such a business plan existed that
offered reason for anyone to believe it would be better than Microsoft, then
the money would be a non issue. Truthfully, there is no better example of
equality of opportunity even at the top end of the business world that the
way our economy directs money to good ideas.




>
> But you are wrong that I overlook Gates's accomplishments, and I do
> not view him as a public enemy. I just want him to be required to pay
> his fair share of taxes. I'm pleased that his father has publicly
> supported a robust estate tax. I'm pleased that Gates has given a lot
> of money to combat AIDS in Africa. I can't say I'm a big fan of his
> software, however.

The fact that billions worldwide happen to disagree with that sentiment is
proof of the value in software Microsoft has brought to the table...like
very few products in history. It would only make sense that there may be a
better system out there than windows, but more than likely among the main
reasons you don't see capital rushing in to make the next competition is
that the price Microsoft's offers for its products is in fact reasonable,
thus making any business plan to complete unworthwhile. Perhaps if they
were to raise their prices to double what they are now, you would see other
large entrants into the market, who knows. The fact it, the door of
opportunity is wide open to anyone who has a better plan.




.

Relevant Pages

  • The Post I reffered too...reply below, not here.
    ... when you suggest you want to make the outcomes less unequal without ... The perfect example of this is the case of the agent with daddy's money. ... to determine fairness is not only flawed, it can be 100% in direct ... > paying for increased equality. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Bump...point was made.
    ... >> that makes the outcomes less unequal. ... > to determine fairness is not only flawed, it can be 100% in direct ... >> paying for increased equality. ... > the view of assuring equal opportunity for all. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... outcomes rather than the description of the evolution of individual ... we choose the observables (the set of outcomes is the ... >> So you are saying that QM theory does not explain the preferred basis. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... > I don't believe in any 'interpretation' of quantum mechanics. ... QM deals only with statitistics of outcomes ... So you are saying that QM theory does not explain the preferred basis. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: A new record!
    ... Do you want equality of outcomes? ... your money with him his life would be much better and you can afford it. ... but you can't expect Bertie to understand the difference. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)