From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #224 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, September 24 2006 Volume 15 : Number 224 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:33:27 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard Jeff wrote: > This connects to my point about inherited wealth (which I didn't say we > should eliminate - only that those who argue about individual effort > almost > always overlook the benefits those with inherited wealth begin with): one > core reason those who argue against government support and in favor of > free-market approaches is the notion that the former distributes rewards > with no clear relation to effort, that it saps incentive, and that it's > ultimately less fair and more inefficient as a result. But at least > concerning the first two points, far too often free-market advocates never > consider that rewards are *already* distributed w/o relation to effort > (via > inheritance), and that if it's true that suffering is the engine to > achievement (as you seem to imply), then all those non-suffering > trust-funders ought to be lazing around on their asses. You're neglecting the effort that was put into creating the inheritable sum in the first place. Unless you have a random lottery involved, you cannot state with any truthfulness that inheritance is distribution without relation to effort. The one thing you do neglect, however, when assailing opposition to inheritance, is that inheritance does not go always to offspring who are "non-suffering trust-funders...lazing around on their asses." Even egregious examples like the Hilton sisters don't fit your mold 100% of the time, with Paris just releasing a line of perfume and a CD (I even saw a relatively positive review of it, shockingly) and Nikky having just set up a company to build an 85 condo development in Florida. They might not be capable of earning the hundreds of millions of their father, but I wouldn't call them any lazier than any random frat's aggregate drive. In the end, it's just a stereotype to justify institutionalized confiscation of an estate when all the estate tax does is harm the small sliver of folks that aren't superrich enough to know far ahead of time that they should manipulate their estates to avoid the tax or who don't want to pay for the large number of scum-sucking attorneys necessary to avoid the tax. At the end of the day, supporting the estate tax as it sits today is really nothing more than welfare to already-rich attorneys, the same ones who lobby so that the system is avoided by the clients they most desire only by extracting a handsome salary. It is an artificial market, created by government regulation, that cannot be construed as constructive in any way and can be construed as destructive in many ways because it encourages the parents of trust funders not to get their kids off their lazy asses, but rather the exact opposite. The incentive the tax provides is for people to spend it wantonly and privately on non-capital goods instead of building a small business that can provide jobs for generations of workers. > And, of course, > some > do - but others work just as hard as anyone else, but with the advantage > of > starting on third base. Very Rawlsian of you to worry about this, but there are many ways to end up starting on third base beyond inheritance--would you advocate handicapping intelligence or height or speed as well a la the world of Harrison Bergeron? If not, what makes a financial advantage really any different? > I find it amusing, though, that on the one hand free-market economics laws > are supposed to be so powerful, so attuned to the deepest deeps of human > nature, that defying them in the slightest way, even out of the most > sincere > charity, is an abomination that will ultimately lead to disaster...yet > they're simultaneously so very fragile that any little minor inconvenience > along the way (such as having to pay taxes) is apparently enough to > utterly > sap entrepreneurial energies, causing the potential entrepreneur to throw > in > the towel and resign himself to a life working minimum wage at McDonald's > (especially if it's $8/hr. instead of $6/hr!), because he just wouldn't > want > to have to pay those extra taxes. This paragraph demonstrates the complete lack of understanding that you have about what economics actually is and what economists are talking about when they speak of incentives and disincentives in taxation. But then again, I have known very, very few on the left who actually due and maintain any honesty (I'm looking at you, Paul Krugman and Brad Delong!). > I also note that the will and incentive of the (potentially) wealthy man > is > given the most capacious passageway: we wouldn't want to do any damned > thing > that might discourage the wealthy from creating more wealth (like, say, > eliminating the ceiling on FICA taxed wages, which results in those who > earn > more than ~$85,000 to get an extra 8% or so on each dollar - because, not > having that extra 8% will cause the poor dears to just stop earning money > above the former ceiling) - whereas when issues that provide disincentives > toward the *poor* are pointed out, well, that's just the poor's problem > for > having such weak wills and being unwilling to do the right thing, tough it > out, and eventually earn money. Actually, I'm about as libertarian as they come when it comes to taxation, and I hate FICA with a passion because of how stupid Social Security is (there is no "trust fund," there is no "lock box," and the rate of return is lower than your average passbook savings account since it was instituted, a perfect example of a horribly conceived social program), but I agree with you on FICA. Why should there be an income cap on FICA at all if we're going to have it? But then again--why should there be a cap on how much you can contribute to a 401(k), either? If I were more cynical I would say the combination of the two is almost like the government is, by design, providing a system which is guaranteed not to be able to pay for my retirement and simultaneously limiting my ability to provide for my own so that I'll have to be dependent upon some other government program or other. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:49:39 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Fired up I was just looking at the Drudge Report and saw a link to the Fox Clinton interview (or at least a part of it). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4 I'm not passing any judgment on it aside from saying that the segment is probably the most impassioned I've seen former President Clinton. Ever. A brilliant segment. Very defensive. Very on-the-ropes, but still, I'm impressed by it. I've got to re-watch it a few more times and read up on the events surrounding it. The audio on the video is terribly out of sync, but the dialog is great. To be a reporter interviewing a former President and to have him leaning forward in his chair jamming his index finger into your knee in emphasis; I don't care who you are or who he is, it's got to be a bit intimidating. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:51:52 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On 9/24/06, Marc Alberts wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > This connects to my point about inherited wealth (which I didn't say we > > should eliminate - only that those who argue about individual effort > > almost > > always overlook the benefits those with inherited wealth begin with): > one > > core reason those who argue against government support and in favor of > > free-market approaches is the notion that the former distributes rewards > > with no clear relation to effort, that it saps incentive, and that it's > > ultimately less fair and more inefficient as a result. But at least > > concerning the first two points, far too often free-market advocates > never > > consider that rewards are *already* distributed w/o relation to effort > > (via > > inheritance), and that if it's true that suffering is the engine to > > achievement (as you seem to imply), then all those non-suffering > > trust-funders ought to be lazing around on their asses. > > You're neglecting the effort that was put into creating the inheritable > sum > in the first place. Unless you have a random lottery involved, you cannot > state with any truthfulness that inheritance is distribution without > relation to effort. The effort is not that of the person benefiting. If I inherit a million dollars, it's not because of anything *I've* done (other than being born to a millionaire). The one thing you do neglect, however, when assailing opposition to > inheritance, is that inheritance does not go always to offspring who are > "non-suffering trust-funders...lazing around on their asses." My prose was perhaps less than clear. *Not* all wealthy offspring sit on their asses. In fact, probably most do not. What I don't understand (due, apparently, to my complete lack of understanding of economics) is why resources that are given to a person to lift them from poverty are claimed to turn them into shiftless, lazy blobs of dependency (because they did nothing to earn those resources), while resources that are given to a person via inheritance are *not* presumed to turn those folks into shiftless, lazy blobs of dependency (even though they, too, did nothing to earn those resources - save being born in a wealthy family). This is a "good for the goose, good for the gander argument": if it is bad for people to be given money they haven't earned, and that's the principle used to argue against social welfare programs, then it is bad for people to be given money they haven't earned, and the same principle should be used to argue against inheritance. The fact that the people who argue against social welfare *rarely* argue against inheritance suggests that the putative harm of unearned money is not actually why they're arguing against welfare. egregious examples like the Hilton sisters don't fit your mold 100% of the > time, with Paris just releasing a line of perfume and a CD (I even saw a > relatively positive review of it, shockingly) and Nikky having just set up > a > company to build an 85 condo development in Florida. Oh come on: do you really think that, in either case, there was much work involved? What exactly is involved in Paris Hilton's "releasing" a line of perfume...other than, probably, showing up to sign a contract authorizing the use of her name and likeness? Was she in the labs in a white coat testing out various fragrances? Was she doing research into the chemistry of perfume? As for the CD: to be fair, I haven't heard it. But the process is most likely much the same: some record label figured there'd be people who'd buy a CD with Paris Hilton's name on it, so producers and songwriters were corralled, synths were deployed, Paris came into the recording studio and warbled for twenty-seven minutes, massive pitch-correction and effects were applied to results, mixing was done...voila: a Paris Hilton CD. Or I'm wrong, and Paris Hilton is a chemical genius as well as a brilliant musician, and Nikky (if that's how she's spelling her name these days) is a cunning and resourceful real estate magnate. But neither of them, so far as I know, has earned their way to any of those positions: Paris didn't go to graduate school in chemistry, nor has she worked her way up in the music industry playing club after club for five people and beer change; and Nikky (I'm thinking most likely) did not earn any sort of business or design or even hotel-restaurant management degree. They were given those opportunities to make money and to create wealth *not* because of the sort of qualifications non-famous people would have to have to get them, but because they are famous and wealthy. > And, of course, > > some > > do - but others work just as hard as anyone else, but with the advantage > > of > > starting on third base. > > Very Rawlsian of you to worry about this, but there are many ways to end > up > starting on third base beyond inheritance--would you advocate handicapping > intelligence or height or speed as well a la the world of Harrison > Bergeron? > If not, what makes a financial advantage really any different? Well, I believe your general position is that wealth - if one wants it - is something anyone can earn, by dint of hard work, etc. (If that's not your individual position, it's certainly the position of most free-market arguers, at least insofar as those arguments are refracted into the everyday press.) I've yet to hear anyone argue that if you work hard, you can be taller or more intelligent (as opposed to more educated, more knowledgeable, more skilled), or that anyone, given enough effort, can set world records in sprinting. In other words, intelligence, height, and speed are largely physical givens that, within narrow limits, cannot be altered. Wealth is not: wealth is entirely a social construct, the earning and distribution of which is determined by the particular structure of a society...which structure is changeable, not pregiven by biology, etc. It's why racism is despicable (among other reasons, it denigrates people for something they cannot change) but making fun of someone for liking Paris Hilton CDs is perfectly fine. > I find it amusing, though, that on the one hand free-market economics laws > > are supposed to be so powerful, so attuned to the deepest deeps of human > > nature, that defying them in the slightest way, even out of the most > > sincere > > charity, is an abomination that will ultimately lead to disaster...yet > > they're simultaneously so very fragile that any little minor > inconvenience > > along the way (such as having to pay taxes) is apparently enough to > > utterly > > sap entrepreneurial energies, causing the potential entrepreneur to > throw > > in > > the towel and resign himself to a life working minimum wage at > McDonald's > > (especially if it's $8/hr. instead of $6/hr!), because he just wouldn't > > want > > to have to pay those extra taxes. > > This paragraph demonstrates the complete lack of understanding that you > have > about what economics actually is and what economists are talking about > when > they speak of incentives and disincentives in taxation. > Well enlighten us O Great Swami! The argument seems to be that certain interferences with the workings of the market (such as some taxes - or all of them, depending how libertarian one is) constitute a disincentive to the creation of wealth, since the taxes divert resources away from that creation and divert effort into minimizing the effects of those taxes, no? A separate disincentive I've read about any number of times isn't about tax: it's the notion that welfare is a disincentive to work and independence. (The full-dress version of this position is used to argue against socialism generally and claims that the whole society will lack incentive: no one will invent anything, no one will fill missing needs, because everyone will turn into a big ol' baby nursing at the iron teat of the state.) All *I'm* saying is that we give such tender credence to anything that supposedly discourages wealthy people...but things that discourage poor people are written off, and the poor are accused of lacking character. No one says to the wealthy person (who's supposedly going to not start the stunning new wealth-creating enterprise because there's too many taxes involved), hey, grow a pair and do it anyway because it will benefit you and others regardless of those taxes. No, instead the argument is against the tax. (I already compared the situation with money different people get without earning in the cases of rich (inherited) and poor (welfare) above.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > First off: I've never collected a paycheck from a poor person. Right. Only the elite are served by slaves. That has always been the case, whether the elite are determined by heir of title or heir of cash. > By that I mean that jobs -- jobs ranging from those paying minimum wage > on up to ones that pay excruciatingly well -- are created how? By people > with money. Jobs are created by needs. If something needs to be done, there's a job to do. Anything else is just greed. > Secondly, regarding minimum wage: do you work for minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage to a living wage would effect far more than just those folks currently making the minimum wage. The living wage in most parts of the country is right around the starting salary for most career paths requiring a single undergraduate degree (~US$24K). Hence, millions of workers who are above minimum wage but below the living wage would be effected. > Anyone who rails for minimum wage hikes is railing against the wrong > thing. They should pay a bit more attention to why the Hell so many > people are thinking these jobs are career decisions and not something to > get you through High School. Uh huh. And who's going to do food service for the lunch crowd downtown? High school students? And what about veterinary receptionists and sales clerks? They make less than a living wage and typically work 9-5ish hours. > Thirdly: Who the Hell is the Government to, upon anyone's death, step in > and seize assets of any sort? That's a very good question. First, let's think about what you mean by "Government". That word is deeply misleading. Government is governing -- telling folks what to do. Only part of what you call government does much governing. Some of it provides public services (like building roads and stuff). So let's not call it government. Let's say we have a collection of Public Agencies, many of which have a role in governing behavior. So whence do these agencies derive their power to do anything at all? The powers are, theoretically, derived from the people who consent to be governed in exchange for uniform application of rules for predictable society. That's basically it. [Yeah, it's dumb because those who do not consent to be governed are still governed. Your other option is some kind of general anarchism with people who want predictability and uniformity joining voluntary planned communities where they can choose to stay or leave at the age of consent. The amish do something like this.] That's the Democratic theory. There are other theories of government, of course. One of them (which is still applied consciously and unconsciously by huge numbers of people -- perhaps even the majority) is that certain classes of people are not capable of making choices that lead to right action; they need to be governed. Age, religion, wealth, heritage, and ethnicity are all used to classify people into governors and governed in certain places or cultures. Consciously, in the USA, we apply this rule to people under 18 years. Unconsciously, we surely use all of the others and some I didn't mention. Primarily, people build governmental agencies in order to uniformly apply rules relating to property. Ultimately, every piece of property is just appropriated from the environment (you dig up a rock, cut down a tree, suck down some air, or suck up some oil). But the idea that appropriation creates a right of ownership makes for a very unpredictable system of property. So people create elaborate methods for determining right of ownership and codify them as law. If your ruling elite are property-holders, well, the self-serving loop is initialized, primed, and ready to run. We have a secondary consideration of how to fund these public agencies (even the governing ones). Typically, this is done by "taxation" whereby certain transactions related to property are mitigated by a tax paid to the people's collective. Taxation on property transactions makes sense because the primary purpose of government is to enable property ownership and transactions, so the people who benefit are the principle supporters. Other means of funding public agencies include mandatory service (whereby folks are conscripted to serve under some penalty) and simple appropriation (whereby the agencies take possession of whatever things would enable the agency to do its business regardless of other claims). We have seen that ownership starts with appropriation, but where does it end, if at all? If something ceases to be owned, does it then become part of the environment to be simply appropriated again? These are consequential questions and require establishment of the base theories. Under what circumstances do we agree that a person can claim exclusive dominion over (ownership of) property? How can that property bo conferred from one person to another? In what way is the transaction taxed? Your "self-reliance" view would imply that one must "work for it" in order to claim property. If that's the case, then a person must find a rich person (or collection of people with cummulative wealth) to please with their labors. These transactions are taxed with income taxes. Clearly, a person who inherits wealth did not "work for it". Hence, a "you must work for it" theory of property ownership does not support inheritance at all, taxed or otherwise. A mercantilist view would allow property ownership to be conferred by trade. In that case, you find someone who has property you would like to own and offer them property you own and come to some kind of agreement to transfer ownership likewise. These transactions are taxed with the various sales taxes at different levels and scales of sales. I think one would be making a very tortured argument to claim that inheritance is a sales transaction. How about gifting? The idea here is that property ownership can be transfered at the will of an owner to anyone willing to become the new owner. I think we might have something. After all, we have a concept of "last will and testament" for a dead person to have their final wishes executed at the time of their death. This looks great. Hmm... gifts are taxed, too. Whattya know? And if they weren't, then you'd have a means of bypassing all other taxes by simply labelling your transactions as gifts. Hence, there would be no means for funding public agencies. Hence, there would be no police force or legal system to prevent other people from simply claiming dominion over your property (by force or otherwise). With no predictability, there's no property at all. Turns out, if we don't tax inheritance, we don't get to have property! > The Communist Manifesto rattles off ten things that really have to > happen to realize the Communist worker's paradise. Number three: > "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." Um, OK. I question the relevance of the above. Is it merely red-baiting? I thought we outgrew that with McCarthy. > Interestingly enough it also lists its tenth tenant as "Free education > for all children in public schools." We're already there with that. And that's a pretty cool thing. Sounds like we should be implementing more of those "tenant" thingies. > But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace > home education by social. Wait... are you telling me that people can no longer teach their children? Holy SHIT! When did this happen? Must have happened since I turned 18 because my parents taught me all kinds of things at home. Also, I was home-schooled for a year and no cops came a-knockin' forcing me to go to the public school (even though my mother barely passed her GED exam a few months prior and my father was, at that time, functionally illiterate). So how was anything "destroyed"? > And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the > social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or > indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not > intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to > alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from > the influence of the ruling class. Uh huh. That sounds pretty cool. There's a " (3)" at the end of your message with no "" with which to pair it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:42:29 -0400 From: "ken ostrander" Subject: let's hear that riff again >(PS: New Robyn Hitchcock album!) i hope to get it soon. i've heard all of the samples on yep roc and the full songs on myspace and it is not enough. and yet so much. robyn sounds energized. i feel like i've been grooving on the advance ep as i await the album. underground sun soars eight miles high belltown ramble reminds me of piper at the gates of dawn briggs sounds like an outake from perspex red locust frenzy is the least frenzied of the bunch cause it's love would sound good in a medley with gigilo aunt authority box has a hunky dory vibe ny doll evokes nietzche's way ole tarantula could be the mekons museum of sex is as funky as i've heard him get adventure rocket ship needs its own cartoon spotted eagle ray (next three): >1.) violent attack by enemy combatants let local militias (or...um...police) handle the problem. you can get your gun and join in or, better yet, let the crazies kill each other. one of the great lessons in life is to know when to get out of the way. soldiers and cops and robbers and 'enemy combatants' all tend to drive recklessly and shoot off their mouths and guns. sure, it gets the blood pumping; but it can also get the blood flowing. i don't see any value in hunting or war or football for my life. violence doesn't settle or solve anything. it only acts as a magnet for more of the same. now, i'm not saying that we should be sheep. i think that it's important for us to stand up to bullies and tyrants and terrorists. our fear is their power. i think that if more people took responsibility for the people around them (especially the troubled and challenged) then the dancing apocalypso spectre might be exposed scooby doo style. maybe if when people got upset other people listened and tried to help (instead of marginalizing or worse), then there might be less of a need to act out the frustrations in some orgy of blood. as we depend on 'the government' or 'the military' to do our good deeds for us, we lose our humanity. >2.) development of nuclear weapons every nation has a right to protect itself and to pursue whatever means it deems necessary for such. isn't the idea of nuclear non-proliferation like trying to keep the kids from finding the gun you keep under your pillow? the knowledge is out there. poverty and ignorance are not cures for the bomb. they tend to make people more succeptible to...see number one. if everyone had the bomb, then perhaps there would be some real sense of equality and mutual respect. >3.) how (or do) you react beyond ritual tongue-lashings and UN condemnations? weeping and gnashing of teeth. as it is, the only nation to use nuclear weapons (not counting depleted uranium projectiles) against other peoples is the united states of america. the madness of mutually assured destruction seems to be the only effective deterent. the united nations will continue to be a joke as long as the security council runs the show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24 as long as we continue to think in terms of 'us' and 'them', we will continue to see the same problems (racism, sexism, classism, faithism; pick an -ism, any -ism) play out. connection and (at least an attempt at) understanding are the only way to work these things out. it really is a choice at the personal level. we do it every day in every human encounter. capuchin: i'm not so sure that things are so bleak. i do think that "fighting against the dominant culture" is like tipping at windmills or swimming in mud; and that's after you've defined it. of course, i've learned to pass and can pretty much move in and out of most social situations. it's not all it's cracked up to be. ken "music is the antidote to the world of pain and sorrow" the kenster ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #224 ********************************