The phrase 'you can't increase taxes on job creators' annoys the heck out of me because it is a lie. . We've been un-taxing the rich for thirty years and you see the results around you. Institutions have been hollowed out. The idea of the commons is gone. It is all me, me, mine.
Remember the Clinton years? The tax rates were still very low but we did take in enough to have an actual middle class.. We even had a budget surplus. W took care of that surplus by un-taxing the wealthy. You and I got $2500 while the upper 1% got billions. Where are the jobs those billions should have created? Why does anyone think giving them more billions will create more jobs?
So here it is, the rich corporations do not create most of the jobs. Most of the jobs they have created are overseas. It is small business that creates local (real) jobs.
Don't be fooled when politicians talk about 'small business' either. They mean Subchapter S (Sub S) corporations and in this case the small means 20 stockholders which can be 20 VERY RICH stockholders.
What is wrong with giving back a bit to the system that has enabled all this wealth? You know, where people who have a lot are expected to contribute to the good of the entire nation?
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Winged Radio
Right wing::
Guest: "Those liberals hate America."
Host: "Yes they light the Consitution on fire with a burning American flag."
Left wing:
Guest: "Those conservatives hate America"
Host: "You can't say that in general. even the wackiest Tea Party congressperson believes they are working for the good of the country."
Guest: "Those liberals hate America."
Host: "Yes they light the Consitution on fire with a burning American flag."
Left wing:
Guest: "Those conservatives hate America"
Host: "You can't say that in general. even the wackiest Tea Party congressperson believes they are working for the good of the country."
Friday, July 29, 2011
Plan B for the economy
There are so many Plan B's floating around DC now that this is probably off the end of the alphabet but here's my take:
As the artificial debt crisis fiasco hits the deadline, Congress can't figure it's way out of a paper bag, so -
The President uses the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution to keep the US out of default and avert global crisis
Congress starts impeachment hearings because a Democratic President has acted like a Republican President, and they completely ignore any deficit legislation.
- I pray that I am wrong.
As the artificial debt crisis fiasco hits the deadline, Congress can't figure it's way out of a paper bag, so -
The President uses the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution to keep the US out of default and avert global crisis
Congress starts impeachment hearings because a Democratic President has acted like a Republican President, and they completely ignore any deficit legislation.
- I pray that I am wrong.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Espe's Conjecture
This is an early attempt at writing down a half baked idea that needs work. Stay tuned as I'll edit this as I get ideas. Thoughts and comment are very welcome.
--- here is my conjecture:
A sufficiently complex system has at least one singularity
These terms need some definition and at present they are still not quantatative enough but here goes
A singularity is an inconsistency or paradox or something that cannot be proved or done in the system itself.
This might be restated along the lines of open versus closed systems, implying there are no closed systems, a closed system being defined as a system with no singularities.
Examples:
Logic - this sentence is false
Cryptography - an electronic system requires some pre-existing trust. For example, Difffie-Hellman requries some pre-shared secret or it is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
General Realitivity - has real singularities inside black holes!
Math - singularities are called Axioms.
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is another example - it might even be a more concise statement of this Conjecture but at this point I'd like to think the conjecture is more general.
You get the idea, if a system is complex enough, it has built in limits, it cannot explain or do things without something from another system or outside actor.
--- here is my conjecture:
A sufficiently complex system has at least one singularity
These terms need some definition and at present they are still not quantatative enough but here goes
A singularity is an inconsistency or paradox or something that cannot be proved or done in the system itself.
This might be restated along the lines of open versus closed systems, implying there are no closed systems, a closed system being defined as a system with no singularities.
Examples:
Logic - this sentence is false
Cryptography - an electronic system requires some pre-existing trust. For example, Difffie-Hellman requries some pre-shared secret or it is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
General Realitivity - has real singularities inside black holes!
Math - singularities are called Axioms.
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is another example - it might even be a more concise statement of this Conjecture but at this point I'd like to think the conjecture is more general.
You get the idea, if a system is complex enough, it has built in limits, it cannot explain or do things without something from another system or outside actor.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Innovation versus healthcare
One ideal in business is the idea of an innovative company that takes risks and brings new products to the market. Some of these products would be so innovative that they'd create a new market Those new products then improve our standard of living. I think of game changing products like the PC, the iPhone, stuff like that. The United States does a great job along these lines and we should keep doing that.
What we can do to help foster new innovative companies is to provide healthcare. Critics call it socialized medicine - and it is. This is a good place to apply socialism - really. Health of the nation is a social thing, it should be shared. When the whole national healthcare debate started, I thought businesses would be glad to give the healthcare burden to the government. I believe it would be way more efficient to insure everyone than to hassle the insured and leave the uninsured to the dogs.
But back to my poin: if you have a family and a kid with a chronic health issue and come up with a billion dollar idea, you might just forget the idea and stay at your job because it has the healthcare benefits your kid needs. If your healthcare was not tied to your job, you'd go out and innovate. We want business to take risk but we don't want to risk our families to do it - do we?
Why does it make sense to link medical care with whether you have a job or not? All the other grown up countries separate the two. The United States is the most innovative place but we are hobbling ourselves with limits like this. Think how much better we could be if business risk didn't involve family health risk.
What we can do to help foster new innovative companies is to provide healthcare. Critics call it socialized medicine - and it is. This is a good place to apply socialism - really. Health of the nation is a social thing, it should be shared. When the whole national healthcare debate started, I thought businesses would be glad to give the healthcare burden to the government. I believe it would be way more efficient to insure everyone than to hassle the insured and leave the uninsured to the dogs.
But back to my poin: if you have a family and a kid with a chronic health issue and come up with a billion dollar idea, you might just forget the idea and stay at your job because it has the healthcare benefits your kid needs. If your healthcare was not tied to your job, you'd go out and innovate. We want business to take risk but we don't want to risk our families to do it - do we?
Why does it make sense to link medical care with whether you have a job or not? All the other grown up countries separate the two. The United States is the most innovative place but we are hobbling ourselves with limits like this. Think how much better we could be if business risk didn't involve family health risk.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
It's your money
Yeah that was great, wasn't it? Lowering taxes and getting to keep all that money is wonderful, huh?
No? Where'd it all go? Funny how all your money that you saved isn't there - OK it isn't funny.
The money that you didn't give to the government seems to have gone to really rich folks. We didn't even notice we were giveint it to them.
But it cut down on waste and big government - except now we have to pay for visiting the parks and we have to pay for school things our kids used to get. And pay little taxes here and there and there and there and there
By being fooled into reducing taxes so we could keep 'our money' we have cheaped our way into this mess while rich folks have actually gotten to keep their money (and apparently our money too).
The way I see it, if we all worry about the other person, we will all be better off. If we're all out for ourselves, some of us will do very very well but most of us won't.Thing is, the well to do would still be well to do, heck, if everyone was better off, they'd be even weller-to-do.
No? Where'd it all go? Funny how all your money that you saved isn't there - OK it isn't funny.
The money that you didn't give to the government seems to have gone to really rich folks. We didn't even notice we were giveint it to them.
But it cut down on waste and big government - except now we have to pay for visiting the parks and we have to pay for school things our kids used to get. And pay little taxes here and there and there and there and there
By being fooled into reducing taxes so we could keep 'our money' we have cheaped our way into this mess while rich folks have actually gotten to keep their money (and apparently our money too).
The way I see it, if we all worry about the other person, we will all be better off. If we're all out for ourselves, some of us will do very very well but most of us won't.Thing is, the well to do would still be well to do, heck, if everyone was better off, they'd be even weller-to-do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)