DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on August 05, 2015, 06:29:15 PM
-
This was such a great window into the mindset of the left, I wanted to start its own thread. And in particular, I came across an excellent op-ed, on the concept of equality/inequality.
Again, putting aside there is no right to financial/economic equality, policies pushed by the left to addres supposed inquality, frequently exacerbate the status quo, providing even wider gaps between the rich & poor, as the middle class gets completely screwed, while completely ignoring what's inheirent to the "inequality" to begin with. Here's a hint, rarely, if ever, does it have to do with discrimination
------------------------------------------
A particular act or policy might not have a discriminatory intent, but that doesn't let you off the hook. If it has a disproportionately negative impact on so-called protected classes, it is said to have a disparate impact and risks being prohibited by law. The uninformed assumption made by judges, lawyers and academics is that but for the fact of racial and sex discrimination, we all would be distributed across occupations, educational backgrounds and other socio-economic characteristics according to our percentages in the population. Such a vision is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence, anywhere, at any time, that but for the fact of discrimination, there would be proportional representation among various socio-economic characteristics. Let's look at some disproportionalities, with an eye toward discovering the causes and then deciding what to do about them.
If one were to list the world's top 30 violinists of the 20th century, at least 25 of them would be of Jewish ancestry. Another disparity is that despite the fact that Jews are less than 3 percent of the U.S. population and a mere 0.2 percent of the world's population, during the 20th century, Jews were 35 percent of American and 22 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners. Are Jews taking violin excellence and Nobel Prizes that belong to other ethnicities? If America's diversity worshipers see under representation as probative of racial discrimination, what do they propose be done about over representation?
Over representation may be seen as denial of opportunity. For example, blacks are 13 percent of our population but about 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players and among the highest-paid players in both sports. By stark contrast, blacks are only 2 percent of the NHL's professional ice hockey players. Basketball, football and ice hockey represent gross racial disparities and as such come nowhere close to "looking like America." Do these statistics mean that the owners of multibillion-dollar basketball and football operations are nice guys and ice hockey owners are racists? By the way, just because blacks are 65 percent of professional football players, let's not lull ourselves into complacency. When's the last time you saw a black NFL kicker or punter?
There are even geographical disparities. Not a single player in the NHL's history can boast of having been born and raised in Hawaii, Louisiana or Mississippi. Geographical disparities are not only limited to ice hockey. The population statistics for North and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their population is black. In states such as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented. When such racial disparities were found in schooling, the remedy was busing. I'll tell you one thing; I'm not moving to Montana. It's too cold.
Geographical disparities don't only apply to the U.S. Historically, none of the world's greatest seamen has been born and raised in a Himalayan nation, such as Nepal and Bhutan, or a sub-Saharan nation of Africa. They mostly have been from Scandinavia, other parts of Europe, East Asia or the South Pacific.
Being a man, I find another disproportionality particularly disturbing. According to a recent study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times likelier to attack and kill men than they are women. Such a disproportionality leads to only one conclusion: Sharks are sexist. Another disturbing sex disparity is that despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. Of those killed by lightning, 82 percent are men. I wonder what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men.
Differences are seen by many as signs of inequality. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman put it best: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
Equality in conjunction with the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty.
Commentary (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/08/05/legal-and-academic-equality-nonsense-n2033947)
-
Milton Freeman was full of crap.
The truly innovative people have rarely been motivated by huge amounts of money. Jonas Salk, Edward Land of Polaroid, were motivated by the joy of discovering a new way to do things. People that are motivated by the Big Bucks go where the big bucks are: banking, hedge fund managers, real estate developers.
No one turns down a huge fortune, but if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were motivated by money, then they would not be giving most of it away.
Do not expect Rupert Murdock or Carl Icahn to be giving away their fortunes, though.
Most people who claim that the major motivation is money do so because that is THEIR major motivation. But they are not creative people, nor will they ever be.
-
Do not expect Rupert Murdock or Carl Icahn to be giving away their fortunes, though.
Carl Icahn:
One of the top fifty most generous people in the United States, billionaire and business magnate Carl Icahn has three separate foundations and last year gave $200 million to the Mt Sinai medical school in New York City. Icahn has also founded and currently support six charter schools, all of whom report significantly higher test averages on reading and math than public school students. Carl Icahn says that the major challenge of today is the disparity in the United States between the very rich and the poor working class who are not afforded the same opportunities, which is why education is his main pursuit in charitable giving. Icahn has three foundations, the Icahn Charitable Foundation, Foundation for a Greater Opportunity, and Children?s Rescue Fund. Through these foundations he has the charter schools and charitable gifts, as well as scholarships funds and a housing complex for single mothers and their children, as well as a homeless shelter in the Bronx. He is also a member of The Giving Pledge, although he committed to bestowing all of his wealth to charity twenty years before the project came to light.
https://philanthropy.com/article/No-8-Carl-Icahn/155493
-
Ouch
-
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have Icahn beat by many a mile.
You read hype, then you believe it.
And in any case, the issue is that TRUE INNOVATORS like Gates, Sabin, Salk, Land, probably not Buffett or Icahn, are motivated only by huge fortunes. Actually, very few of them are.
So Icahn is not even in the running as any sort of innovator. All he does is buy companies, throw people out of work, loot the company's assets and resell it. He is the guy that destroyed TWA in just that manner. That is not innovation: it is legalized piracy.
-
Your grasp of mind reading, and a person's "intent" is shall we say, sorely lacking in ability
-
I do not need to read anyone's intent.
I was commenting on what innovators have said and what their biographers have said about them.
Creative people ( who you do not understand, being one of the least creative critters on this planet) are mostly motivated by goals other than vast fortunes. Medical innovators are motivated by ending suffering. We do not have many Edisons and Teslas around, since modern innovators tend to work in groups, because simple inventions have largely been invented. The light bulb is a lot more simple than the LED or the photocopier. The Internet was created by people working for the military, it was originally called ARPANET.
-
Apparently you have that gift of mind reading, since you, and you alone, know why anyone that became wealthy, the priorities of their motivation. You should really sell that gift to the highest bidder
So, can you provide a quote by ..... oh, let's say Murdoch, that his sole motivation to succeed in business was to make as much $$$ as possible.
It's interesting how you grabbed only 2 rich names, and 1 was already shot down as supposedly not being generous with his monies. You do also realize that multiple stories have been provided that demonstrates Conservatives & Republicans as FAR more generous in their charitable giving than Liberals, right?
-
I have no idea. This is about creative people and their motivations, not the politics of rich people.
Here is one good way to help creative people be creative. I think it has been more successful than the lure of great wealth.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation.aspx (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation.aspx)
-
I understand your need to keep moving the goalposts. Point being, YOU HAVE NO FRICKEN CLUE WHAT MOTIVATES SOMEONE. You seemed to be under some twisted reality that if a person is rich and supports leftist causes, their intentions of becoming wealthy was purely coincidental. But if they're rich and they support conservative causes, they're just greedy bastards.....DESPITE the fact that Conservatives support more charitable causes than their liberal counterparts
Which again is all completely beside the point of the article, in that inequality is natural phenomenon. Just because inequlaity exists doesn't automatically mean something is wrong, or someone(s) are being discriminated agaist. There is no rational basis to push the notion that the rich need to have their wealth siphoned to give to the poor. "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
-
People tell us what motivates them. All you have to do is read their autobiographies and biographies. If they are interested mostly in money, they drone on about the good news their accountants have told them. This is not normally the case for the truly creative people. Read some interviews with Elon Musk or Steve Jobs.
-
People tell us what motivates them. All you have to do is read their autobiographies and biographies.
So, show us where Murdoch is quoted that money is his #1 motivator to being successful
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/books/review/Carr-t.html?partner=rssjborbamp;emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/books/review/Carr-t.html?partner=rssjborbamp;emc=rss&_r=0)
Murdock does not like to talk about his motives, but this biography makes it pretty clear that money and the satisfaction of his huge ego are his main motivators.
You would have to actually read the entire book to understand why I say this, but this review seems to do a fair job.
-
Sorry, you can't point to a book, and say the answer is in there somewhere. YOU get to back up your own accusation. .... provide us a quote (from the book if you'd like) that clearly supports your claim that Murdoch is only motivated by money, as in HIS words, or a biographer perhaps
-
Read the book or fuck off, sirs. I am not going to read to you.
-
In other words, you have nothing to back up yet another asinine claim. Here's a hint, doesn't require you to read us a book.....merely ONE quote from the book to back it up. Ball in your court
-
If you are so lazy that you cannot read ONE DAMNED BOOK, then to Hell with you. I read this several years ago, and my experience with your feeble attempts at debate is that you deny everything anyway/ You believe that the Founding Fathers could own slaves and not consider this in their writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you refuse to recognize that the racist Dixiecrat rightwingers shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in the 1960;s and '70's, and you still think invading Iraq was an act of genius.
I have no hope that you will ever be capable of understanding reality. It is bloody obvious that Murdoch is obsessed with money and that he is in no way any sort of positive innovative force to any country whose media he has defiled.
-
I'm not the one who made the claim that rich conservatives in general & Murdoch specifically are only motivated by money to be successful. Ball in your court to back it up
-
No, you are the one who makes idiotic remarks and asks stupid questions and reveals zero desire to actually read or research one damned thing.
The topic is not about Murdoch, anyway. The main thought is that true innovators, unlike investors, are very often not motivated only by money. But you are to fucking dumb to know what the topic actually is. All; you want to do is sit by the sidelines and quibble about crap that has little to do with the main topic.
-
The topic is about the irrational claims regarding inequality. You tried, erroneously of course, to imply rich folk who give to liberal causes, are rich merely by happenstance, that they were motivated to be successful because they just "wanted to make the world a better place. You say that is backed up by what they "say" or by some biographer. But then the same breath, you claim those rich folks who support conservative causes are only to get rich, yet have squat to back that up. Those folks can be just as motivated to want to better the world as your precious Soros, but because you're so blinded by partisan ideology, it just breaks down to liberals good & conservatives evil greedy bastards. No need to consider reality. It is what it is, and that's all that it is
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kamen
Dean Kamen is one of my favorites.
He isn't only a good engineer and scientist , he is effective at improving the standard of things he cares about , like dialysis machines and wheelchairs.
He is a leader in whatever field he chooses , from medical devices to clean energy innovations.
And , he is whimsical , inspiring and fun to listen to as he speaks.
That he is also making a mint seems an afterthought.
-
And , he is whimsical , inspiring and fun to listen to as he speaks.
That he is also making a mint seems an afterthought.
=============================================
This is typical of innovative people. They are seldom in it for the money. They would be doing the same thing even if their innovations only provided them a comfortable existence. Their motive is not bazillions.
-
And yet no examples of folks like Murdoch motivated by bazillions. Funny that
-
... Their motive is not bazillions.
Perhaps with some of them the goal is a high score in the cash game , and with some of them the cash is a tool for getting something worthwhile done.
-
In matter of innovation thiers no one answer and definitely no one path. Steve jobs talents is that he does not think like an engineer but understand what they can make. His flaw is he doesn't understand money enough to gauge his limits and he got fired for it.
Money can motivate but also limits.
The reason we have government sponser research is because it has the advantage to fail. Corporate research has financial limits which limts the variety and narrows innovation.
Steve jobs has funded many research that are very risky with no concern of failure. I know someoneon apple and we have talked in length about this.
-
I think that Jobs was very competitive, but he was not particularly motivated by money. He wanted to constantly be on the cutting edge.In that way he seems to be like Elon Muck.
Murdoch has issues with his father and is very competitive, but he sees money as a gambler as sees a pile of chips in front of him. Money, not admiration of the public or other techies, is his way of keeping score.
After the first billion or so, money is not really meaningful: one lives with one billion the way one would live with ten billion.
Trump wants everyone to admire his huge pile of money and his name on everything. He egotism borders on psychopathology. Silvio Berlescone is similar to Trump.
-
As I said, it's utterly amazing this ability you have at reading other people's minds & what motivated them. ::)
-
Your mind is pretty simple, sirs.
This entire discussion is based on the constant harp, harp, harping by the ratbag right that rich people should pay even LESS in taxes so they can provide jobs for all the rest of the people.
No one, they tell us, can be expected to invent anything new, develop any new drug, start any new industry unless they can be assured that it will make them filthy rich beyond their wildest dreams, because getting rich is what motivates everyone. The goal of every American is and should be "He who dies with the most toys, wins."
And I disagree with that. I do agree that the people who spew this gross materialistic dream are in fact themselves motivated by money, but they are wrong to believe that everyone is like them.
That is what this is all about, regardless of all the nonsense that sirs bandies about.
-
More projection......this "discussion", coming from your end, is nothing more than you harping that the only thing that motivates those who become successful, but happen to support conservative causes, is purely greed and nothing more......with not a shred of 1 quote to support any of it.......just your amazing mind reading say so.
While any rich person who happens to support liberal causes had all sorts of altruistic motives, and becoming wealthy had nothing to do with anything. The double standing blinders are firmly attached
-
Money can motivate but it can't make you creative. Dvae chapelle was offered 25 million to do one more season of his show he turned it down because he likely cant produce the material. It easy to say you would not turn the money down but its doubtful anyone can say they can do the job
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kamen
Dean Kamen is one of my favorites.
He isn't only a good engineer and scientist , he is effective at improving the standard of things he cares about , like dialysis machines and wheelchairs.
He is a leader in whatever field he chooses , from medical devices to clean energy innovations.
And , he is whimsical , inspiring and fun to listen to as he speaks.
That he is also making a mint seems an afterthought.
What happens if you tax Dean Kamen enough that his income is regularized with the rest of us?
At least half of his inventions were not money makers right up front, and some of them may never be.
Too much progressive tax load would not only prevent Dean from buying North Dumpling , it might also prevent some of his inventing.
Some research is cheap and some research is expensive , do we really want to ensure that our innovators never leave the bounds of cheap?
-
Spending money on innovation is one thing, not taxing huge windfalls is something entirely different.
This is not about money spent on research and development. It is about taxing windfalls for the common good at less than a third of their income.
-
But taxes only effect profits so the effect maybe notable it's doubtful it'll have that great of an effect to innovation
-
That is what I say.
I am NOT saying that innovators should not be rewarded. I AM saying that the argument that taxes must be lowered to encourage innovation is basically bogus.
-
Taxes are a load to carry.
How can you have a tax on profit that isn't also a load on innovation?
This is not a plea that there be no tax, just please realize that whatever you tax, you reduce, and the only limit on the amount of tax is the death of what you tax.
If you tax innovators , that is fair , but if you overtax them you reduce innovation directly.
-
Profits should not be taxed about 33% or so. At present, the actual taxes paid are under 20%. Tax RATES in the US look high, but there are so many loopholes, very very few pay the top rate. Mitt Romney paid a measly 14% on an income of millions. The Clintons paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.
-
. The Clintons paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.
Don't you believe it!
-
Nor is it a loophole. Romney has reached a level of success, where his income is strictly from his investments. That's not a loophole, that's merely how successful he has become, since taxes on investments is less than taxes on income. Otherwise it disincentivises those to invest. Those who are still earning money by "working", if that's what you call the Clinton's giving speeches, and being paid bazillions for it, is still taxed as like standard income. Still, not a loophole, just a convenient, albeit lazy, effort by leftists to try and paint some twisted taxation error, where there is none. Before Romney became rich enough to live strictly off his investments, all work he performed, and was paid in doing so, was taxed just like you & I
-
Of COURSE it is a loophole. Romney does not work for his money.
Note that his frequent trips to the Cayman and his tax returns for decades before the only returns he submitted are still a secret.
He is just as likely to use his money to make stuff cheaper in China and put more Americans out of work.
The tax laws are designed to benefit the few very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. It is pretty much the same as considering hims and hid ilk a charity.
Clinton's taxes are more inline with what he should be paying. This country made him very rich by making him famous, so why should he NOT pay some of it back?
Rpmney was NEVER taxed "like you and I". That is just bullshit: he has always been rich. He gave back some of his fortune after it was invested and it paid him dividends and interest.
-
Of COURSE it is a loophole. Romney does not work for his money.
Of course its not SINCE HE NO LONGER WORKS FOR HIS MONEY. And what he does with his money is his business. But it'd be a safe bet that he gives exponentially more money, not just total, but a % of his net worth to various charities than you do
-
I will be able to retire a lot sooner if investment income is taxed gently.
And investment is good for industry , so is good for everyone in a round about way for some and directly for those hired or served by the businesses that investment builds up.
I really wish I had learned earlier in Life about investment , starting sooner makes a lot of difference.
Why aren't we teaching children what compounding interest does for them , or to them if they get on the wrong side of it?
-
All you have to do to be taxed gently is to open up a Roth IRA, invest the maximum, pay those taxes ONCE and never again.
That, together with your SS and your government pension could give you more than for not working than you ever earned before.
If you are not taking advantage of the Roth IRA, you have no real right to complain.
But the main argument is not about middle class people like you, it is about the filthy rich, to whom an extra million will not change their lifestyle in any recognizable way.
-
Mitt Romney paid a measly 14% on an income of millions.
The Clinton's paid about twice that, as they had fewer loopholes.
Oh bullshit.
Typical double-speak like when Hillary attacks "Hedge Fund Mangers"...
but then poor little Chelsea married a Hedge Fund Manager and buys a $10.3 Million Apartment.
The Clinton Foundation hides millions....
Romney is Saint compared to those crooked hillbillies......they are corrupt as hell.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank
By Election Day 2016, taxpayers will have paid out more than $16 million to fund Bill Clinton's pension, travel, office expenses and even the salaries and benefits of staff at his family's foundation, federal records show. Since he left the White House in 2001, Clinton and his office have received more money through the Former Presidents Act than any other ex-president, according to a POLITICO analysis of budget documents.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/taxpayer-tab-for-clinton-inc-16-million-116008.html#ixzz3iQ9Z05j6
-
Is it corrupt when hedge fund managers give bazillions to the Republican't Party?
It is, of course possible for Hillary to be in favor of Hedge Fund managers NOT being allowed to declare their salries as capital gains and pay them at the same rate as she and Bill do.
I suppose that your solution to this "corruption" would be for Hillary to forbid Chelsea to marry the hedge fund manager until he stops managing hedge funds and takes a job with Greenpeace.
Could Hillary be jailed if her son-law were convicted of tax fraud? No, she could not. The mother is in no way responsible for what her daughter does. Chelsea can marry whomever she wishes.
You do not understand the law, all seem to understand oit the ratbag rights idiotic rantings.
Only if and when Hillary is actually CONVICTED of corruption can you call her corrupt.
I don't think that using a private server for her e mails is a crime of corruption, even if it was illegal.
-
I don't think that using a private server for her e mails is a crime of corruption, even if it was illegal.
Putting all the deflection efforts aside, this is indeed eye popping. When Republicans were even thought to have committed a crime, that was simply proof positive of just how corrupt they are. Here, you have the leading Democrat nominee for President, who xo himself even concedes that yea but even if what she did was illegal, doesn't mean it was a crime of corruption
Yea, let's ignore the fact of the very likely crime itself. Yea, yea, he'll backtrack and claim he never said what Clinton did was illegal, in which case, I'm going to head him off at the pass and make it clear, that I never said he did. Merely the implication that IF there was any illegality behind Clinton's e-mailing of classified documents on her private server, that shouldn't brand her as corrupt.
Stunning, albeit not suprising, double standard, if you ask me
-
If I go to work with a thumb drive in my pocket , this would be an infraction that would call for discipline, up to and including getting fired.
But I am a real Civil Servant.
I work for the Federal Government
Not vice versa.
-
You call it corruption, and it is NOT corruption. Not all illegal acts are corruption. Corruption would be if she financially profited from using private e mail.
It has yet to be proven that she has actually broken the law: she has not been accused nor convicted. Except by mronas on Fox and the tiny mind of sirs.
Reagan has DOZENS of his toadies convicted.