QuoteThree in four Americans want members of Congress to return money they got from bailout-financed American International Group for their political campaigns, according to a new poll.The poll from The O'Leary Report by Brad O'Leary and Zogby International today revealed that 73 percent of Americans think politicians, including President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., should not have profited from AIG and should return the money.Obama and Dodd were the top recipients of campaign largesse from AIG over the past two years, with Obama getting $104,332 and Dodd raking in $103,900. Others got money, too, but in smaller amounts. All together, AIG donated $644,218 to federal politicians.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteThree in four Americans want members of Congress to return money they got from bailout-financed American International Group for their political campaigns, according to a new poll.The poll from The O'Leary Report by Brad O'Leary and Zogby International today revealed that 73 percent of Americans think politicians, including President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., should not have profited from AIG and should return the money.Obama and Dodd were the top recipients of campaign largesse from AIG over the past two years, with Obama getting $104,332 and Dodd raking in $103,900. Others got money, too, but in smaller amounts. All together, AIG donated $644,218 to federal politicians. Were they given the total figure when asked their opinions? I agree that we've lost a certain perspective when it comes to the size of numbers, and I have difficulty deciding what's "big" in the current climate, but that is laughably small.

QuoteOriginally posted by: AashQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteThree in four Americans want members of Congress to return money they got from bailout-financed American International Group for their political campaigns, according to a new poll.The poll from The O'Leary Report by Brad O'Leary and Zogby International today revealed that 73 percent of Americans think politicians, including President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., should not have profited from AIG and should return the money.Obama and Dodd were the top recipients of campaign largesse from AIG over the past two years, with Obama getting $104,332 and Dodd raking in $103,900. Others got money, too, but in smaller amounts. All together, AIG donated $644,218 to federal politicians. Were they given the total figure when asked their opinions? I agree that we've lost a certain perspective when it comes to the size of numbers, and I have difficulty deciding what's "big" in the current climate, but that is laughably small.I understand the question was QuoteThe new poll, which has a margin of error of 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters: "Should members of Congress who received campaign donations over the past two years from the troubled financial giant AIG return the contributions?"it may be "laughably small", but it's the hypocrisy:Obama's reaction reminds me of Harald and Kumar escape from Gitmo where the Gitmo guards feed the inmates a "cock meat sandwich' (off camera so it doesn't really happen) which I understand is a NZ delicacy.Then the complain that the inmates are all homos and how much it disgusts them.Then there's the impression that AIG is bribing congress with taxpayers' money.

QuoteOriginally posted by: AashQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorConsider a government that has no interest other than getting as much tax as possible (not hard is it ?)If you have zero tax then it gets no incomeAt 100%, you also get no tax either because no one bothers to earn.It follows that there exists at least one maximum between those two points.Uncontentious you may think ?Taxes are so 20th century! They are an unfair and irrational way of trying to compensate for an unfair, irrational and broken economic system.To collect the income due to the community/public, one must make an appropriate separation between public interest (and responsibility) and private interest (and responsibility) in the market place. No economic system, to my knowledge has ever addressed this problem rationally rather than ideologically. Isn't it about time we did?Conceptually, I find this interesting, this idea that you could quantify income due to the public, although I'm not even certain what you're recommending here. Care to elaborate?The basic principle is that the earth and all of nature's bounty, including the laws of physics and mathematics and all science, are the natural inheritance of the community as a whole. This means that if anyone exploits them for private gain, then they must compensate the community. The way to do this is by the market and it is the responsibility of the community to provide a functioning market place which, again, is a community right. Those who wish to exploit a particular resource compete in the market for the rights to whatever aspects of nature they need. They can then make whatever product they like and sell it on the open market. In essence this requires the separation of resources and other means of production (public interest/responsibility) from production itself (private interest/responsibility). Government regulates markets and collects compensation for the use of the earth/universe and private sector manages production. Each is forbidden from interfering in the other's sector.I'll just give a very simple (and grossly over-simplified) example that will convey the idea:There is a tree that could be cut down and used to make furniture. Those who wish to make the furniture bid for the right to the tree. The winning bidder pays the community, cuts down the tree, makes the furniture and sells it to the community. End of story.What we have now is that those who want the tree, fight wars over it until one triumphs and the others give up or are dead. Then he claims every other tree as his own and pays the hungry crowd to do the work of cutting them down and making the furniture. He then organises the government to defend his rights to the trees and taxes the workers who cut them down in order to pay for the police and armies he needs to enforce his claim. Every now and then he tosses a few twigs to the unemployed crowd who protest in order to keep them quiet.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperMost folks I know just want the government to leave them aloneMost folks I know just want capitalism to leave them alone.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperMost folks I know just want the government to leave them aloneMost folks I know just want capitalism to leave them alone.If only its embrace were a little warmer and it still respected you in the morning...

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaYou can't separate economics from ideology.Of course. But you can separate blind irrational ideology from intelligent behaviour. Or, at least, thinking person, rather than an alpha dog, can.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mackbarQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperMost folks I know just want the government to leave them aloneMost folks I know just want capitalism to leave them alone.If only its embrace were a little warmer and it still respected you in the morning...You want warmth and respect from a rapist?

That's a little strong, but I suppose there might be some hope with an anarcho-syndicalist...

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: AashQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorConsider a government that has no interest other than getting as much tax as possible (not hard is it ?)If you have zero tax then it gets no incomeAt 100%, you also get no tax either because no one bothers to earn.It follows that there exists at least one maximum between those two points.Uncontentious you may think ?Taxes are so 20th century! They are an unfair and irrational way of trying to compensate for an unfair, irrational and broken economic system.To collect the income due to the community/public, one must make an appropriate separation between public interest (and responsibility) and private interest (and responsibility) in the market place. No economic system, to my knowledge has ever addressed this problem rationally rather than ideologically. Isn't it about time we did?Conceptually, I find this interesting, this idea that you could quantify income due to the public, although I'm not even certain what you're recommending here. Care to elaborate?The basic principle is that the earth and all of nature's bounty, including the laws of physics and mathematics and all science, are the natural inheritance of the community as a whole. This means that if anyone exploits them for private gain, then they must compensate the community. The way to do this is by the market and it is the responsibility of the community to provide a functioning market place which, again, is a community right. Those who wish to exploit a particular resource compete in the market for the rights to whatever aspects of nature they need. They can then make whatever product they like and sell it on the open market. In essence this requires the separation of resources and other means of production (public interest/responsibility) from production itself (private interest/responsibility). Government regulates markets and collects compensation for the use of the earth/universe and private sector manages production. Each is forbidden from interfering in the other's sector.I'll just give a very simple (and grossly over-simplified) example that will convey the idea:There is a tree that could be cut down and used to make furniture. Those who wish to make the furniture bid for the right to the tree. The winning bidder pays the community, cuts down the tree, makes the furniture and sells it to the community. End of story.What we have now is that those who want the tree, fight wars over it until one triumphs and the others give up or are dead. Then he claims every other tree as his own and pays the hungry crowd to do the work of cutting them down and making the furniture. He then organises the government to defend his rights to the trees and taxes the workers who cut them down in order to pay for the police and armies he needs to enforce his claim. Every now and then he tosses a few twigs to the unemployed crowd who protest in order to keep them quiet.You may like the writings of Henry George. The problem is for most products/services the value added comes from IP as opposed to natural resources. Google does not make its money because it owns a bunch of office space.

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: AashQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorConsider a government that has no interest other than getting as much tax as possible (not hard is it ?)If you have zero tax then it gets no incomeAt 100%, you also get no tax either because no one bothers to earn.It follows that there exists at least one maximum between those two points.Uncontentious you may think ?Taxes are so 20th century! They are an unfair and irrational way of trying to compensate for an unfair, irrational and broken economic system.To collect the income due to the community/public, one must make an appropriate separation between public interest (and responsibility) and private interest (and responsibility) in the market place. No economic system, to my knowledge has ever addressed this problem rationally rather than ideologically. Isn't it about time we did?Conceptually, I find this interesting, this idea that you could quantify income due to the public, although I'm not even certain what you're recommending here. Care to elaborate?The basic principle is that the earth and all of nature's bounty, including the laws of physics and mathematics and all science, are the natural inheritance of the community as a whole. This means that if anyone exploits them for private gain, then they must compensate the community. The way to do this is by the market and it is the responsibility of the community to provide a functioning market place which, again, is a community right. Those who wish to exploit a particular resource compete in the market for the rights to whatever aspects of nature they need. They can then make whatever product they like and sell it on the open market. In essence this requires the separation of resources and other means of production (public interest/responsibility) from production itself (private interest/responsibility). Government regulates markets and collects compensation for the use of the earth/universe and private sector manages production. Each is forbidden from interfering in the other's sector.I'll just give a very simple (and grossly over-simplified) example that will convey the idea:There is a tree that could be cut down and used to make furniture. Those who wish to make the furniture bid for the right to the tree. The winning bidder pays the community, cuts down the tree, makes the furniture and sells it to the community. End of story.What we have now is that those who want the tree, fight wars over it until one triumphs and the others give up or are dead. Then he claims every other tree as his own and pays the hungry crowd to do the work of cutting them down and making the furniture. He then organises the government to defend his rights to the trees and taxes the workers who cut them down in order to pay for the police and armies he needs to enforce his claim. Every now and then he tosses a few twigs to the unemployed crowd who protest in order to keep them quiet.You may like the writings of Henry George. The problem is for most products/services the value added comes from IP as opposed to natural resources. Google does not make its money because it owns a bunch of office space.As I recall, George was interested only in land. And he advocated a land tax. I talk about any "resource", including whatever is discernible from nature (that obviously affects IP, but not trivially, since I would reward the work that goes into discovery and invention but without granting a monopoly on what humans can learn). Otherwise, I agree there are similarities.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mackbarQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperMost folks I know just want the government to leave them aloneMost folks I know just want capitalism to leave them alone.If only its embrace were a little warmer and it still respected you in the morning...lol !Capitalism will leave you alone but the government won't.Go live in montana, grow your own crops, have solar power and a well, and the like, and you can live off the land.But you still get a property tax bill

As long as they plow the roads and protect my Constitutional rights, esp. Amendments 1 and 2, they can have their tithe.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperCapitalism will leave you alone but the government won't.Ideologues love oxymorons like this. Meaninglessness is meaningless to them after all......

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: AashQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorConsider a government that has no interest other than getting as much tax as possible (not hard is it ?)If you have zero tax then it gets no incomeAt 100%, you also get no tax either because no one bothers to earn.It follows that there exists at least one maximum between those two points.Uncontentious you may think ?Taxes are so 20th century! They are an unfair and irrational way of trying to compensate for an unfair, irrational and broken economic system.To collect the income due to the community/public, one must make an appropriate separation between public interest (and responsibility) and private interest (and responsibility) in the market place. No economic system, to my knowledge has ever addressed this problem rationally rather than ideologically. Isn't it about time we did?Conceptually, I find this interesting, this idea that you could quantify income due to the public, although I'm not even certain what you're recommending here. Care to elaborate?The basic principle is that the earth and all of nature's bounty, including the laws of physics and mathematics and all science, are the natural inheritance of the community as a whole. This means that if anyone exploits them for private gain, then they must compensate the community. The way to do this is by the market and it is the responsibility of the community to provide a functioning market place which, again, is a community right. Those who wish to exploit a particular resource compete in the market for the rights to whatever aspects of nature they need. They can then make whatever product they like and sell it on the open market. In essence this requires the separation of resources and other means of production (public interest/responsibility) from production itself (private interest/responsibility). Government regulates markets and collects compensation for the use of the earth/universe and private sector manages production. Each is forbidden from interfering in the other's sector.I'll just give a very simple (and grossly over-simplified) example that will convey the idea:There is a tree that could be cut down and used to make furniture. Those who wish to make the furniture bid for the right to the tree. The winning bidder pays the community, cuts down the tree, makes the furniture and sells it to the community. End of story.What we have now is that those who want the tree, fight wars over it until one triumphs and the others give up or are dead. Then he claims every other tree as his own and pays the hungry crowd to do the work of cutting them down and making the furniture. He then organises the government to defend his rights to the trees and taxes the workers who cut them down in order to pay for the police and armies he needs to enforce his claim. Every now and then he tosses a few twigs to the unemployed crowd who protest in order to keep them quiet.You may like the writings of Henry George. The problem is for most products/services the value added comes from IP as opposed to natural resources. Google does not make its money because it owns a bunch of office space.As I recall, George was interested only in land. And he advocated a land tax. I talk about any "resource", including whatever is discernible from nature (that obviously affects IP, but not trivially, since I would reward the work that goes into discovery and invention but without granting a monopoly on what humans can learn). Otherwise, I agree there are similarities.That is trivial since everything (by definition) is discernible from nature. Suppose I develop a new way of measuring credit risk. I contract out the idea for a fee and make millions. What resources have I used and how much should I be taxed?