It's finally official: We're doomed

Huh?

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Dogmafood claims: Not in the United States. The people truly dont own shit. They sign papers saying they own their houses. They sign papers saying they own their cars. But when push comes to shove, the banks own those - and who owns the banks? When they merge, who owns the banks? The little mom & pop stockholders? They get a flake of ownership. The rich already own the voting share to control and decide how their companies are going to make even more profits. The rich have all the good stuff locked up already. Long ago. We may get the occasional upstart AK-47s and such. They got the missiles & nuclear weapons, should we misbehave.We are truly fucked down here state-side. LOL. It has been a plutocracy for a very long time. And I dont know either...we used to have anti-trust laws that were somewhat effective...or so it seemed.Perhaps steeply increasing progressive tax rates should not be based on how much you earn, but on how much you own.Maybe I want to move to Canada afterall....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

For real. And all it takes is some robo-signer to falsify an affidavit, and when men from the bank show up to repossess a house the bank never even held the mortgage on, guess who the police are going to believe - you or an official-looking piece of paper?Take a wild guess. Police see their job as one where they defer to the nearest authority, and the authority is never the private citizen, even if they're legally and morally in the right. Private citizens, after all, are just potential criminals.

jar writes:

quote:

---

There is no need to strike again at organized labor, it is a big part of the problem and will self-destruct because it no longer offers value to the process.

---

(*chuckle*)That's so precious, that you think organized labor is an actual force in the United States.Quick question: Exactly how much of the labor force is unionized?Think carefuly.Follow-up: How much of the labor force was unionized 10 years ago?
25 years ago?
50?
75?Exactly what sort of power do you think unions have?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

jar writes:

quote:

---

the buyer.

---

And I bet you really believe that.Exactly how does the buyer determine the value when there is no competition?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Almost no power, but the attitudes are still a big part of the problem. The unions still have pockets of strength, for example in some major governmental areas, some education groups. There are also areas where unions really are needed, greater unionization in agriculture for example.I am actually very pro Unions in many areas, but only when the concept provides value or is necessary to provide some significant service.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Where is there no competition?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Dogmafood responds to me:

quote:

---

Crashfrog said there was almost no waste in government.

---

And you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. There is waste in government, of course. Any system that large necessarily has waste. The fact that you can find waste does not refute the claim that there is little waste. You need to show how governmental processes are very wasteful and/or (given your secondary implication) that private processes at the same scale are more efficient.So far, all examples seen show that government is much more efficient...often because only government has the capability of functioning at that size. It's why Medicare has only a 2% overhead compared to private insurance's 25-30%. It's why the British National Health Service spends only 40% of what the US does and yet has better healthcare. It's why the French have the best healthcare in the world at half the cost.It's why the Post Office is able to send a letter anywhere in the country for about 50 cents and have it show up in a couple days.Do you really think that independent companies could maintain the interstate highway system at the same low cost as the government? They couldn't do it before...what makes you think today is any different?When California was having its energy crisis not too long ago, it was at the hands of private companies manipulating the supply in order to jack up the rates. The reason why Los Angeles managed to stay out of it? Because they had their own governmentally-regulated system. San Diego, which had just deregulated everything, bore the worst of it with electricity rates tripling.Now, I'm hardly advocating that the government should be doing everything. Again, there's a reason that the government builds roads, not shoes. But for large-scale systems that are universally accessed, government is typically the only player that can do it efficiently.

quote:

---

I will ruminate on the marvellous efficiency of government while watching 6 municipal workers leaning on shovels and complaining about the high cost of living.

---

How precious that you believe you actually see that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Exxon paid nothing in taxes this last year, for example

---

​

Really?

---

Really.Why don't you know this? Did you bother to do any research into the claim at all or did your knee jerk so hard it smacked you in the head?From Forbes: Then there's General Electric: Bank of America had a refund of $1.9 B on $4.4 B in income. They paid no taxes.Chevron only paid $200 M in US taxes on $18.5 B in income.Ford only paid $69 M on $3 B in income.Verizon only paid $1.2 B on $11.6 B in income.Your homework: Exactly how much tax did Citigroup pay and how much will it pay in the future?

quote:

---

yep, 'cos those CEOs know how to snort those billions

---

Exactly. Why do you think the wage gap has exploded as it has?

quote:

---

So if I am going to discuss this topic, it has to be without the above bullshit, and preferably with those that actually know what they're talking about. Fair enough?

---

Deal.Let us know when you have learned enough to know what you're talking about. We'll still be here when you get back.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

Where is there no competition?

---

Well, let's take the media, for example.Exactly how many companies own more than 90% of media (TV, radio, film, online, publishing, etc.)? What legislation has been proposed regarding ownership of television, radio, and newspaper outlets within a single market?How about airlines? How many airlines were there before the deregulation of the industry under Reagan? How many are there now?Exactly how much investigtion into this topic did you do before you decided to join in?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

Almost no power, but the attitudes are still a big part of the problem.

---

You do realize that the first part of your sentence completely undermines the second part, yes? If they have no power, it really doesn't matter what "the attitudes" are, because none of them ever get implemented.

quote:

---

The unions still have pockets of strength, for example in some major governmental areas, some education groups.

---

No, they don't. You didn't answer my question. Let's try again, shall we?Exactly how much of the labor force is unionized?We'll even break it down:Exactly how much of the educational labor force is unionized?

quote:

---

I am actually very pro Unions in many areas, but only when the concept provides value or is necessary to provide some significant service.

---

And what makes you think you are in a position to have a useful opinion on that subject? How much of the labor force is unionized?And how much does the typical union-member earn compared to the typical non-union member?Exactly how much research into this topic did you do before you decided to join in?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

oh, you really can't bear to be wrong, can you... it is a delight to catch you at it each and every time. Can I quote you:

quote:

---

Exxon paid nothing in taxes this last year, for example
  —rrhain

---

and your "evidence" is

quote:

---

No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
  —Forbes

---

Can you read, Rrhain? Can you? Can you see those qualifiers? "Income tax" and "Uncle Sam". Can I repeat again what you said, Rrhain?

quote:

---

Exxon paid nothing in taxes this last year, for example
  —rrhain

---

Now, do you want to back up what you said, or perhaps you would like to qualify what you said?Also, can I just add this little bit from the Forbes blog where they make some corrections to what they had previously claimed...

quote:

---

What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.

​

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil recorded no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of paid. All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.

​

And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.

---

Know-nothings writing articles and being swallowed by know-nothings, eh Rrhain?Accounting at the level of a company the size of Exxon is a difficult matter - leave it to the big boys, eh?Given your lack of understanding in the above matter, maybe you'd like to revisit all your other examples before we go any further? As a clue, the corporation tax *paid* (or *recorded*) in an accounting period is not solely a function of the PBT. Many other factors come into play.Does this mean that all these US companies are squeaky clean in their tax affairs? I'm sure they're not. But one of the biggest obstacles to tackling that is attacking them with naive bullshit, which undermines the efforts of those who are trying to bring them to account with credible forensic accounting. Crying wolf and all that. So, Rrhain, stop being part of the problem. ok?

Without googling, I am guessing around 8-9%.Somelocal good news here in Denver, though. 5 months ago, a new no unionized grocery chain came to town and began competing with the union grocers. Today, they announced that they were closing. They simply were unable to compete. While sad for the 500 workers laid off, I am glad that we union workers are providing the value that our corporations demand, while being paid enough to enjoy a modest living and stimulate the local economy with our modest surplus above minimum wage.In my opinion, the union is still necessary, for without their power, we would be entirely at the whim of the prevailing wages of new, unskilled (though easily trainable) workers.I agree with jar when he says that we (the union) need to provide value for the company, but I also maintain that we should be paid for our efforts rather than replaced with cheaper labor, like some of those 500 that were laid off.Its a competitive world any way you look at it.

So $110 billion in erroneous payments is a wee tid bit of waste? What about the FIMA fiasco in New Orleans? I personally spoke to a truck driver who was paid thousands of $ to drive a load of ice around in circles for 2 weeks before unloading it in a non refrigerated warehouse. Granted, the challenges are huge but that seems a little over the top. Can I ask for your source on this. Health care and national defence are clearly exceptions to the rule. I did not mean to infer that the gov't serves no purpose. The post office enjoyed a complete monopoly for how many years? UPS has certainly taken a good chunk of their business away. How did they do that? Was it the post office who came up with e-mail? This is a much more sensible statement than 'gov't is more efficient than private enterprise.' All the time my friend. Sometimes these pauses can not be avoided. If you are building a road you need people on hand just waiting to do their part when the time comes. So what looks like slacking off is actually something else. However, years ago, as a stationary engineer, it was my job to keep the boilers running at a greenhouse facility. After my job was complete I didn't stand around waiting for something to break. I picked up a broom or lent a hand where it was needed. I would never walk past a piece of garbage and say 'that's not my problem.' So I would say that most of these problems and inefficiencies in gov't are more appropriately laid at the feet of those individuals who make the personal decisions to drag their ass and say it's not my problem. As I have said in other threads, pretty much all of societies problems can be traced directly back to the decisions of individual people. If enough people decide that it is OK to steal an apple from the cart then you have a crime problem.Sally takes the money she earned from her paper route (read profit) and buys the supplies needed to set up a lemonade stand. She works hard and sells lots of lemonade. Pretty soon she has a lemonade stand on every street in town. Now the neighbour Karl has sat playing with his toy soldiers and watched Sally build her lemonade empire. He sees her riding off on her new bike to inspect all of her lemonade stands. Now Karl is jealous and wonders why he can't have anew bike. Should Sally buy Karl a new bike too? What does Sally owe to Karl? Profit is not waste, profit is the point and it belongs to those who create it.Edited by Dogmafood, : titleEdited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This is probably naive but this seems to be a large part of the problem. Why is it so convoluted and difficult? Money in, money out.Couldn't most of these issues be eliminated by taxing consumption instead of income?