It's ironic that Obama gets elected with big plans to soak the rich at the very moment that the rich are suddenly much less soakable, but it's not really a random fluke. After all, if the markets hadn't collapsed, the margin would have been much closer, and Obama might even have lost.
In theory, it makes sense to squeeze the rich when the rich are riding high, and coddle them when they are down, but that's hard for human beings to do. We root for winners and despise losers, so we usually spoil businessmen and financiers when they are going great guns and smack them around after they stumble. (See "1920s-1930s, History of").
The success of Reagan's 1981 tax cuts stemmed from reversing the usual timing and giving the business class a boost when they were down and feeling unloved and unmotivated. But that's rare.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
59 comments:
I've always wondered why thinly-veiled Robin Hood sentiments like "the rich should pay their fair share" seem to crop up more during recessions. Is there some weird thing about prosperity that means the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?
In reality, the progressives believe their income tax should redistribute all the time, only their commitment wanes in rosy times. The shotgun marriage between Keynesian contercyclical stuff and "social justice" is just a pair of incongruous reasons to favor consumption over investment.
I'd be interested to find out, as an academic point, when support for a high savings and investment rates is at its highest. No reason for that to go down either.
"The success of Reagan's 1981 tax cuts stemmed from reversing the usual timing and giving the business class a boost when they were down": which is the basis of perhaps the best overarching description I've seen of the madness that's engulfed us - "they tried to turn a windfall into a way of life".
"everybody hates a loser"
How do you explain affirmative action and welfare, then?
I suspect the real reason behind the nature of government action is power. In other words a 'public choice theory' type explanation to do with the strength of pressure groups.
Government probably wants to tax rich businessfolk most of the time; but when business is rich and powerful they cannot be taxed (even though it might be good for the nation to tax them more) while when the businessfolk are weak they are easier to tax, even though it harms the country to do so.
Why is the right still defending the rich when the rich got that that way by exploiting cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing?
The rich have gotten richer without any benefit to the American worker. I say f**k em.
Actually, this crisis is a long time in the making and can be traced back to Reagan's tax cuts which decimated the fertility of the baby boom generation by centralizing wealth right when the boomers needed affordable housing. People seem to forget there was a huge home foreclosure surge toward the end of Reagan's second term.
The right way to expanded home ownership is to recognize that the government has no business taxing economic activity nor does it have any business taxing property that people would self-defend in the absence of government -- like a primary residence.
If the proposed tax on net liquidation value in excess of $300k were adopted as the source of revenue for a citizens dividend (with trade barriers against countries that did not provide the same for their citizens) by the Republican party, the Democratic party and liberalism would be DoA and the economic crisis would be over virtually over night.
OT iSteve readers will appreciate this:
Beauty queen scores 156 on IQ test, show on dumb beauty queens scrapped
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1337537.html
The success of Reagan's 1981 tax cuts ...
Those tax cuts weren't a success. The budget deficit swelled tremendously as a result of those tax cuts, despite the huge economic boom that was created when Jimmy Carter successfully crushed the Nixon/Ford inflationary spiral.
Why is the right still defending the rich when the rich got that that way by exploiting cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing?
Economic growth in the 90s (just before the dotcom bust) was about the same as it was this decade before the real estate bust - about 3% per year - in spite of the higher taxes on cap gains, income, and estates. I believe that it's possible to make taxes too high, but clearly they were already low enough before the Bush cuts that they weren't discouraging investment.
I'm not a soak-the-rich kind of guy, but I've officially grown tired of the perpetual arguments to slash their taxes. Certain elements of the conservative movement - Larry Kudlow, Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Deform, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, The Wall Street Urinal, Stephen Moore, etc. - always seem to think that slashing taxes (on the rich only, of course) is the answer to any problem (or non-problem) we have.
Not only that, but the rich are specifically to blame for where we are now. They're the ones who keep the contributions flowing (to incumbents only, of course). They're the ones who kept arguing that we needed a perpetual supply of serf labor to keep the economy growing. They're the ones who were benefiting from all of it. Oh, and they disproportionately backed Obama in the last election, anyway.
Besides, you don't think Obama isn't going to leave a loophole in there for them somewhere - a loophole big enough for George Soros and Warren Buffett to fit through quite comfortably?
"airtommy said...
despite the huge economic boom that was created when Jimmy Carter successfully crushed the Nixon/Ford inflationary spiral."
Hah! That's an unusual reading of history. Just because Carter appointed Volcker doesn't mean that Carter crushed inflation.
Carter also gave us the Department of Education, a useless government beauracracy which is nothing more than a job-shop for leftist education-parasites.
Thank you so much, Jimmy Carter.
"Anonymous said...
Why is the right still defending the rich when the rich got that that way by exploiting cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing?
The rich have gotten richer without any benefit to the American worker. I say f**k em."
I agree. Many rich people (like the ones who voted in large numbers for Obama) have shown themselves to be hostile to Americans of modest means.
I've no interest in carrying their water.
Reagan adminstration economic policy favored the very wealthy as did the Carter adminstration. The General trend since 1973 has been the rapid and extreme concentration of wealth primarily by globalization of the US labor markets through "free trade" and immigration.
Barack Obama will continue with this policy.
To put it another way:Reagan's rich friends became a lot mre richer because they had a friend in the White House whose economic policies resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Ameriacns to the super-rich. This accelerated during the Clinton years.
"Meet the boss,same as the old boss"
"Why is the right still defending the rich when the rich got that that way by exploiting cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing?
The rich have gotten richer without any benefit to the American worker. I say f**k em."
I'm not disagreeing with you about how the rich have fucked the average american at every turn. However, with Obama in the White House, we are all "rich" now. Get it? In any event, I'm not really seeing how Obama is soaking the rich anyway. There is still the push for more and more illegal immigration and no enforcement and then there was that special meeting in SFO last year with the wealthiest people in the US. No press was allowed. Ever wonder why? if Obama is screwing the wealthy, he's beeing pretty nice about it.
In response to "everybody hates a loser", Klaus said...
How do you explain affirmative action and welfare, then?
The winner/loser dynamic is too simplistic to explain anything. It's important to discover how the rabble explain someone's success or failure. If a person failed because "the system kept him down", his failure is evidence of his heroism. The way to tell if the system kept someone down is to make a note of how big a complainer the person is. The bigger the complainer, and the more they have common with cool people who complain in a similar manner, the more of a hero they become when they inevitably fail.
This is a product, not only of leftist racialism and Marxism, but also of Prussified schooling. Any student who complains enough can get exempted from any number of school rules - if a class is too hard, just flunk out of it and you become special. The teachers of the easier classes have the sought-after coddling manner that keeps students from having to face their budding adulthood.
In the old days, getting exempted from rules by complaining got you labelled as weak and untrustworthy. Nowadays, the end justifies the means. Successfully getting around rules in any way - even rules intended to make people autonomous and less reliant on authority - earns the exempted student extra points for "being a rebel".
Losers are the kids who are independent and self-sufficient and talk to their elders in respectful voices.
Look at who all the kids identify with best in fiction. You know who I'm talking about? Good-looking parasites who sleep during the day and never seem poor even though they never have real jobs ... vampires.
The honchos at AIG were making hundreds of millions in bonuses when things were good. If it was possible to go back in time and take that from them the govt would be justified.
My question about the whole "rich get richer!" formula is, have the rich really been getting richer (while the poor get poorer!) forever? If the social classes narrowed at all in terms of income/wealth/whatever, would anyone notice? It seems like it must have happened at some point (are the working classes of 2009 really miserable and downtrodden compared to 1909?) I just can't think of any such period.
Good blog posting, Steve.
Timing is everything and Reagan was the right man for his time.
Meanwhile Obama has miscalculated badly on his 'FDR Revisited' gameplan. Timing is everything. And history tells us that Roosevelt was elected/entered office in 1932-1933 which was right at the bottom of the gigantic bear market that wrung out the big credit bubble of the 1920s.
Roosevelt's timing was perfect. His first term as president marked one of the biggest bear market corrections (bull market) in history.
On the other hand, Obama has entered office in the equivalent of the 1930-31 period. The difference between 1930 and 1933 is huge: the credit bubble is not nearly yet wrung out from the economy. The worst pain is still ahead.
The markets have much further to correct from this level and the blame for the descent into the abyss is going to go squarely on Obama. Roosevelt was able to avoid this scenario and that made all the difference for him.
Why is the right still defending the rich when the rich got that that way by exploiting cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing?
Ha, ha!
I wonder who pays the salaries of the "Right" in America?...
A really mysterious question...
The rich are still riding high - don't kid yourself Steve. It's the middle class that's feeling the squeeze. And anyone with capital is now in a situation to buy cheap assets left and right. Look at the Carlyle group - they're doing fine.
The economic boom of Jimmy Carter? Mr. Malaise himself?
I think you've been attacked by too many killer rabbits Airtommy.
What jumpstarted the economy was a combination of the tax cuts, and more importantly military spending.
Tax cuts alone do nothing if there is no incentive for major industrial manufacturers and employers to increase production and hiring. In stagflation economy made far worse by Carter, with his energy taxes and anti-business regulation and tax regimes, there is not a huge amount of pent-up consumer demand, fat wallets just bursting to be spent on consumer goods manufactured in the US.
Indeed, as consumer goods, low margin high volume, chase cheap labor, it's a dead cinch that betting on consumer spending to stimulate the economy is a losing game, now more then ever. But even in Reagan's time this was a loser.
What he did was ramp up domestic employment, in high paying jobs, putting savings in wallets, and expanding the industrial base that could in many cases (not all) be used for something else. DARPA's expansion during this period for example laid the foundation for the internet.
The fundamental basis for prosperity is manufacturing. Not "hip jobs" marketing a Starbucks Latte with celebrities. Reagan understood that, and his military spending was just as crucial to jump starting the economy in late 1983 and early 1984 as the tax cuts.
Reagan probably remembered how FDR floundered around for nearly 9 years before WWII production saved the economy.
bjdouble,
Nice catch. Isn't this what infuriates so many normal wimmenz? Many models ain't just hot looking, but also smart. Life usually showers the lucky with lots of talent as well. Normal suckers are ugly and dumb. This is what drives the diversity crowd nuts.
Mark -- there's taxes on the rich and there's taxes on getting rich. You're absolutely right that Obama isn't going to institute the former kind, but his tax raises (at the very least, not continuing the Bush tax cuts) are going to hit salaried workers. Warren Buffett's happy to raise income taxes -- he doesn't pay them. I know this is an ancient chestnut of an argument, but it's true. Just like your observation that most of today's rich and the denizens of Wall Street are Democrats is true.
Klaus said...
"everybody hates a loser" How do you explain affirmative action and welfare, then?
The true dynamic is that most people hate whoever is slightly above or slightly below. Toward whoever is more than slightly above, they feel indifferent, while they feel magnanimous toward anyone more than slightly below. Some of this is established in Helmut Schoek's "Envy". (An absolute classic everyone should read and think about.)
The subjects of "affirmative action" and welfare are most often presented as harmless underdogs. This wins the broadest support. A targeted argument is made to people unusually privileged or wealthy, to the effect that these underdogs are potentially threatening and will cause social upheaval if not bribed.
Businesspeople (solvent or broke) are always in the "above" category for most of the population and always get less sympathy. If Bob owns a local hardware store and does well, the average person resents him; if Bob does poorly, the average person feels contempt for him, expressed in terms such as "fool" or "loser."
Some social brakes are put on envy in the form of the convention that it's simply "not nice" to vent either resentment or contempt at Bob. Fewer such brakes exist when the subject is Rockefeller or Buffet.
Your mileage varies depending on your place in the social hierarchy of course.
Steve should have said: "Most people hate a winner - always (if he's up or down)." Naturally, that would be less pithy.
The only reason winners were tolerated during the boom is that people felt themselves to be recipients of some of the winnings. But now all bets are off.
Most of the above comments show invincible ignorance, alas. The mess the world is in now stems from Fiat Money and Fractional Reserve Banking. We ( everyone in the world ) needs the rich to help boost economic growth. Economic growth is the tide that lifts all ships.
We don't need to place the rich in leg irons and we certainly don't need to prevent the movers and shakers who are not yet rich from having their dreams stillborn by a taxing and spending free-for-all.
Let me put it in the terms of IQ: Volkmar Weiss found the growth of gross domestic product* per capita can be derived as a linear function of the percentage of people with an IQ above 105 and its underlying frequency of a hypothetical major gene of intelligence (Mankind Quarterly 49, 129-164).
Volkmar's paper concluded: "There are three types of men: Men with IQ above 123, who invent machines, men with IQ above 104, who repair machines, and men, who use machines." Substitute in the above "manage" for "repair", "business" for "machines" and substitute "benefit from" for "use". ( Also, remember many of the high IQ in a society are termites trying to destroy the society--these insects are chiefly in five areas, Academia, Clergy, Courts ( the three ROBES ), the Media and Government of all levels.
Dan Kurt
*gross domestic product is a fiction BTW. Read this on GDP:[http://mises.org/story/770]
bjdouble said...
OT iSteve readers will appreciate this:
Beauty queen scores 156 on IQ test, show on dumb beauty queens scrapped
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1337537.html
Funny. One of the brightest guys I know is a Slovene. He's tall, blond and legally blind. He's also marginally employed. I met him in a Chinese class when I was a kid. Extremely intelligent, but prone to periods of depression and misanthropy. Every now and then when I'd knock on his apartment door in the local slum he lived in he'd yell "Get out of here!" At other times he'd be very polite and pleasant. I really liked him, but he could be a serious pain when in a bad mood.
The guy painted beautiful nudes, and could grasp linguistic subtleties with an ease that amazed me. I hope he's OK -- haven't seen him in years.
He does look like that girl. Add coke-bottle glasses and she could be his sister.
Offtopic for this particular thread, but strongly on-topic for isteve in general, is this hilarious AP article:
Obama's call of college for all: Could it be done?
They ask six people from the government-educational complex "Is the president's goal realistic? And what would it take to attain it?". Unsurprisingly, five of them answer Yes, it can be done; we just need to throw more money at the education industry. All of those five use the code-word phrase "low-income students"; two of them make it explicit with "low-income and minority students".
People need to be aware of the next WaterGate ... in fact it is bigger than watergate because our "President" was not born in Hawaii and he knows it; therefore, he won't show the original BC and every last one of his records from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are SEALED.
I looked at all the facts so far and it only leads to one place. He is a fraud. I can back all of this up and will do it in my next posts, if interested.
Airtommy is wrong.
The percentage increase of the Reagan era deficits was dwarfed by the increase of GDP during the Reagan. In other words, the national balance sheet expanded at a far greater rate than did the national deficit.
Go back and read Paul Craig Roberts' columns on VDARE.
He actually knows what he's talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
As for Jimmy "Cracker" Carter, it was Paul Volcker who crushed inflation during the Reagan administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker
As for the rich paying their "fair" share, one need only look at California to see how this has panned out.
Many of California's tax receipts were ephemeral, based as they were on capital gains receipts from folks in Silicon Valley selling shares in overpriced tech firms such as google. These gains, together with inflated property taxes from the phony housing boom, are what propped up California's budget. Those who benefited from these capital gains paid far more than their "fair" shares would warrant.
Wait till the new Administration comes up way, way short on income tax receipts due to the stock market meltdown. One must look at California to get an idea of what's coming on a national scale.
Swollen deficits?
President O's forthcoming deficits will dwarf the GDPs of all but a handful of countries on the globe.
The comments on affirmative action are not too instructive.
It's a race based tax, and highly regressive to boot.
The benefits are specific, and the costs are widespread. So, when someone claims to be screwed by it the response oftentimes is "Prove it."
As for regressive, white working class males are the hardest hit by it. They have few alternatives available to escape AA's effects.
SWPL are about to overplay their hand. They have been talking their "make the rich pay their fair-share" propaganda for so long, that they now completely and uncritically believe it. The truth is that today the rich pay the only share. Obama's gross expansion of govt spending will swamp what can be extracted from the rich.
Further, the world is already full-up of our bonds. There is no way they are going to be buying on the order of twice as many over the next 4 years as they had been for the last 4-6. Thus, there will be a marked expansion in taxes and it will reach down to at least the $75k earner before his first term ends. If the economy lingers around 0-1% growth from 2010 to 2012, that combined with his tax increases will make Obama a short-timer like the last two short-timers.
Despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, Clinton knew two fundamental things 1) "it's the economy stupid" and 2) don't get in the way of the rich and they will take care of the economy quite fine. I attribute it to him being from Arkansas, home of Tyson chicken and Walmart. If you weren't going to be a friend of business, you would get run over in fund raising and not have a prayer of political success.
Rich people like Madoff and his fellow crooked billionaire swindlers, and all the Wall Streeters who got million-dollar bonuses while their companies tanked, SHOULD be put in leg irons.
They didn't create wealth. The wealth was stolen from those who created it: investors, stockholders. And now - with the stimulus - taxpayers.
The crooks were capitalist heroes in the Alyssa Rosenbaum mold? Spare me. They're America's oligarchs - and Obama and his buddies only want to join them.
David: Greetings to another "Envy, A Theory of Social Behavior" fan. So much neglected insight there.
"our "President" was not born in Hawaii and he knows it;"
That may or may not be, the question is, how do you "know" it? Where you there in Kenya when he was born?
If Romney had been the Repub candidate, they also might of won. Though the media were pulling so hard and so shamelessly for Obama that it still would have been tough.
Still, McCain's real claim to experience in foreign policy and military issues, and maybe bi partisanship, turned out to be not much of a draw when it became clear that the area of experience and good judgment the country overwhelmingly needed was in economics. There McCain was seen to fumble badly, while Obama tended to wisely say vague things pre election and let his unflagging supporters, nearly all the media organs, shill for him.
People need to be aware of the next WaterGate ... in fact it is bigger than watergate because our "President" was not born in Hawaii and he knows it; therefore, he won't show the original BC and every last one of his records from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are SEALED... He is a fraud.
Anonymous, that Ticker Forum thread that I linked to in Steve's "Obama Budget" blog posting has only gotten more interesting over the weekend. Pages 10-12 of the comments really put a fork in the whole sordid affair.
Everybody knows Obama is not a actually a "natural born Citizen" as required by the Constitution. Obama's Team knows it, and his supporters know it. America's legal establishment knows it. That's why they are all stonewalling instead of airing out the issue. And even though the moronic grassroots "are OK" with a total redefinition of "natural born", the Democratic brain trust knows the danger of going down that road. The situation is really akin to a plot against the King: if you fail, the backlash will be lethal.
But this is a great victory for Saul Alinsky from the grave already, because forcing America's intellectual elite to back off key constitutional requirements because of threats of violence from Black America is essentially... revolution achieved. Done and done! Pretty amazing considering that blacks are only 13% of the population.
Think of the precedent being set for the future. What other key aspects of the Consitution can we ignore next?
I have to admit that I love this stuff. I love watching our decadent elite now squirming in the noose they put around their own neck. The unforeseen legal issues are boiling now. Occidental is being sued to cough up Obama's records with a bunch of case law in their favor. America's elites will forced to completely prostrate themselves in order to go along with this coverup.
Probably a year from now this issue will really start to blow up. Whatever elites left in America with a shread of integrity will have to face the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
Steve is right that Political Correctness Makes You Stupid. PC has made our whole country so stupid that it is beginning to stop functioning.
If the social classes narrowed at all in terms of income/wealth/whatever, would anyone notice? It seems like it must have happened at some point (are the working classes of 2009 really miserable and downtrodden compared to 1909?) I just can't think of any such period.
1945 to 1970.
"Everybody loves a winner and everybody hates a loser"
Where does that leave you, Steve?
The markets have much further to correct from this level and the blame for the descent into the abyss is going to go squarely on Obama.
When a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, it does not make a sound.
But maybe Obama will rack up some enemies powerful enough to make someone hear it.
They're America's oligarchs - and Obama and his buddies only want to join them.
Clinton and Gore, two lifelong pols with zero business experience, were worth $50 and $100 million, respectively, within a few years of leaving office. No paybacks there of course (wink-wink). I've said this here before and I'll say it again: Barack Obama, provided he doesn't leave office in a paddy wagon, will be our first billionaire ex-president - even if he gets booted out in 2012.
I have three basic questions for all would be political economists:
1) If physicists conflated velocity with position the way you conflate income with wealth, where do you think technology would be today? Why do you think economic technology would be any better?
2) If the primary function of government is to uphold property rights, then why is government funded by taxing economic activity rather than taxing property rights?
3) Why don't you ever answer the first 2 questions?
Completely OT, although wait a minute... Anyway:
As I predicted in the comments to Steve's post about Eric Holder, his fellow famous Barbadian mulatto Rihanna is now back with the guy who beat her up, bit her in several places and left her by the side of a road in LA on the morning of the day when they were both scheduled to perform at the Grammies. I just read this on Roissy's blog. A picture taken by the police after the incident is pretty gruesome - bruises all over her face, a busted lip...
Roissy's post about this is pretty entertaining.
*in fact it is bigger than watergate because our "President" was not born in Hawaii and he knows it;*
ohhh whatta tangled web we weave.......
this birth certificate affair is really getting interesting because of the ever-expanding legal minefield that the coverup must negotiate going ahead. team obama is stone-walling because the legal issues are so daunting.
born in hawaii or not......obama was a british subject at birth through his father. that is a transgression of the natural born clause right there........but of course few liberals give a damn because any blood & soil aspects of the constitution make them want to vomit. obama also held indonesian citizenship.
the natural born clause in the constitution is a bitch to get around or redefine because of case law that's already been decided. and no matter what the we-are-the-world liberals desire the *xenophobic* *nativist* *bigoted* *anti-globalist* case law sits there like a gigantic roadblock. so the best strategy is to just avoid going down the road completely. keep stone-walling forever.
senator shelby's comment last week *I haven't seen a birth certificate* was amusing.
this entire matter is ground zero for lawrence auster's *hilarious dilemma of liberal patriotism*.......
My question about the whole "rich get richer!" formula is, have the rich really been getting richer (while the poor get poorer!) forever? If the social classes narrowed at all in terms of income/wealth/whatever, would anyone notice? It seems like it must have happened at some point (are the working classes of 2009 really miserable and downtrodden compared to 1909?) I just can't think of any such period.
Post WWII through the 60s, until foreign competition really put the squeeze on labor costs and unions. 100 years ago it was higher than now. Graphs of income inequality in the 20th century form a V
That may or may not be, the question is, how do you "know" it? Where you there in Kenya when he was born?
One point for Truth.
"Where(sic) you there in Kenya when he was born?"
No, but his Grandmother was.
"Post WWII through the 60s, until foreign competition really put the squeeze on labor costs and unions."
In 1945 the US was the only major industrialized country in the world, all the factories in Europe and Japan having been bombed to rubble. It's not realistic to compare any other period to that one.
the natural born clause in the constitution is a bitch to get around or redefine because of case law that's already been decided.
The US is a proposition nation as liberals and neo-cons like to remind us, founded on principles, the constitution.
Well here is the constitution at least nodding toward blood n' soil. Ignore the constitution and where is your proposition nation then boys and girls?
"Ignore the constitution and where is your proposition nation then boys and girls?"
Yep from the perspective of the useful Idiots (NWO middle management): This is obviously the snake eating itself and too much deep thought in this area will produce an existential crisis; and an internal crisis of conscious in the Bridge Over the River Kwai mold. But from the perspective of the Inner Party Elite: The illogical incoherence is just a necessary step in the transition to the New America. The Proposition Nation idea was always just part of a broad Gramscian strategy devised to usurp power from the natural (blood & soil) elites of the country. The Inner Party doesn't care about the snake eating itself and a imminent collapse of the system. They thrive on chaos; they want the country broken; and they want its people desperate for solutions from Big Brother.
In a mature global government the regional commissars will be ethnically distant from the populations that they rule over. Stalin was chosen as an acceptable leader of the movement because of his hostility toward ethnic Russians. Obama and Sarkozy etc are optimal New World Order puppets because they share no primitive blood & soil stirrings of the soul with the serfs. Blair and Brown in the UK are both Scots who are hostile to the very notion of England.
In 1945 the US was the only major industrialized country in the world, all the factories in Europe and Japan having been bombed to rubble.
To qualify that slightly, British factories were not (mostly) rubble in 1945 but they had been run into the ground, were worn out and out dated.
That's often cited as one reason for relative British economic decline since WW2.
German and Japanese business had to build up again from scratch. British industries could patch up and carry on. That gave them some export advantage in the immediate post-war period but meant they hadn't modernized the way the Germans and Japanese did.
I think there is more to it than that but the argument has some merit.
The US is a proposition nation as liberals and neo-cons like to remind us, founded on principles, the constitution.
No, they call it a "creedal nation." I always wondered what the hell that creed was, who defined it, and if a person could get excommunicated for not believing in it.
In their view, it seems, breaking a window, stealing your way in and wanting to make money is enough to qualify. Because no one in the rest of the world likes to make money.
""Where(sic) you there in Kenya when he was born?"
No, but his Grandmother was.
Gwood, it's actually quite comforting to me that you would take the word of a 70 IQ old black woman you have never met before as law with absolutely no proof...Especially in contrast with the throngs of 125+IQ white people who tell us the opposite. It's liberals like you that make this country run so smoothly my friend!
"Where(sic) you there in Kenya when he was born?"
No, but his Grandmother was."
Enjoy try getting some data from that pit. That is such a f. up country, it’s unbelievable. Last time I was there was 1994. I can imagine it only got worse since then.
"That may or may not be, the question is, how do you "know" it? Where you there in Kenya when he was born?"
This is the kind of crap passing as pseudo-intellectualism you can expect from "Truth". Was he there when Hitler committed suicide? Was he there when JFK was shot? Was he in every plantation during slavery and witness to the abuse? Was he in Soweto during the Soweto riots? Of course not. But because it fits his template he accepts all that at face value. Yet when its about your little hero, Barry Boy, he uses the lame old trick of personally challenging people in order to put them off balance. So cheap.
That may or may not be, the question is, how do you "know" it? Where you there in Kenya when he was born?
I don't know one way or another, but I find the reluctance to provide whatever it is all these litigants want to be a bit odd. There have been a couple dozen, adding together cases already dismissed.
Why not just produce the frickin' documents and save the taxpayers some money?
Was he there when Hitler committed suicide? Was he there when JFK was shot? Was he in every plantation during slavery and witness to the abuse? Was he in Soweto during the Soweto riots?"
Film exists of the Soweto riots and of JFK being assassinated. There are hundreds of well regarded accounts of the trials and tribulations of slavery; and Hitler didn't shoot himself, he had his brain vivisected and transported to Brazil.
"I don't know one way or another, but I find the reluctance to provide whatever it is all these litigants want to be a bit odd."
So do I Svigor, but "odd" does not translate to "fact" that's a substantial reach.
Shazaam said...
Think of the precedent being set for the future. What other key aspects of the Consitution can we ignore next?
What other key aspects of the Constitution are being ignored right now? Illinois has a gun control law that clearly violates the second amendment, yet it has never been struck down. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First amendment applies to the states, what about the second? The recent SC ruling against the DC gun ban was a joke, and Democratic House member Bobby Rush of Illinois has already introduced a bill to bring IL style gun control to the entire country, which would make it easier for ghetto Blacks to riot and kill without opposition from Whites, or Korean shopkeepers.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First amendment applies to the states, what about the second?
Obviously, by its terms, it applies to the states -- no need for recourse to the "incorporation" doctrine.
"Volkmar's paper concluded: "There are three types of men: Men with IQ above 123, who invent machines, men with IQ above 104, who repair machines, and men, who use machines."
Was is this, Germany circa 1875? the last thing most people with a IQ over 123 are doing these days is inventing machines.
How many machines has George Soros invented?
nzconservative,
Nah, there's this thing called aptitude. I'm roughly IQ140 but I would never dream of working on WS. I invent machines and engineering structures. It’s more satisfying, though the pay sucks compared to WS. I'm happy though with enough dough to eat, sleep comfortably, and finance more uni. No car, no house, no debt. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That all high IQ's should hang around WS is an American obsession.
Re: O/T - Rihanna is not a "mulatto". Don't know where you got that from.
Post a Comment