Page 2 of 60
Posted on May 13 at 3:19 p.m.
it's why god gave us the internets
On The Gokhale Method
Posted on May 13 at 2:54 p.m.
and of course my comment was addressed to loon. can't comment on 14no, since i don't know the meaning or relevance.
Posted on May 13 at 2:51 p.m.
Only a monotonous fool riding to endless battle on a broken hobbyhorse would think that was an appropriate comment to an article on a postural treatment for back pain, so I'm glad I'm not the one who wrote it.
Posted on May 13 at 12:07 p.m.
If I wrote, "It's been said that loonpt is an idiot for dragging his anti-government fixation into even the most irrelevant contexts," it would be unfair to you if I didn't included who said it and why I considered that person a reliable judge in such matters. It wouldn't be enough for me to say, "don't you know what 'said' means?"
Posted on May 13 at 10:39 a.m.
I realize that the Independent doesn't have the resources to check the claims of every supposed healer or purveyor of wisdom, ancient or otherwise, but surely its readers deserve better than a credulous transcription of these people's self-aggrandizing revelations.
Posted on May 13 at 10:19 a.m.
An unsourced claim that this has been heralded as "one of the greatest contributions ever made to nonsurgical back-pain treatment"?
How could the Independent even consider publishing this as anything other than a paid advertisement?
Any editor there care to comment?
Posted on April 16 at 8:15 a.m.
Asia (and Africa) have had high growth rates since the 1960s. This says absolutely nothing about some supposed causal connection between the tax policies of the European nations, their economic growth, the well-being of its citizens, including access to health care, higher education, and economic opportunities, and in turn the effects of those on economic growth.
In addition, according to your reasoning, lowering the top tax rates should lead to greater economic growth. And yet it doesn't. http://www.businessinsider.com/study-...
Attributing the economic problems of some of the European nations to this one supposed cause while ignoring the multiple factors behind the financial crisis and deep worldwide recession is nonsense.
And your bashing of France in this context is based on what exactly?http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...
As to your general claim, well, "There is, it turns out, a fair bit of variation among euro area countries in the amount of redistribution — and there is actually a positive correlation between redistribution and growth over the post-crisis period, significant at the 10 percent level."http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014...
Finally,"On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations."http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/s...
On A Fair American Flat Tax
Posted on April 15 at 9:09 p.m.
Botany. Which numbers do you think prove what?
Posted on April 15 at 7:29 p.m.
Botany. I assume you have the relevant figures for all of the European economies, including the effects on the quality of life of their populations. Please provide them.
Posted on April 15 at 2:07 p.m.
"This is social redistribution of wealth: Un-American and unfair." Nope.
Here's Paul Krugman, referring to a recent book by Thomas Piketty:
The modern notion that redistribution and “penalizing success” is un- and anti-American is completely at odds with our country’s actual history. One subsection in Piketty’s book is titled 'Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention'; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:
"When we look at the history of progressive taxation in the twentieth century, it is striking to see how far out in front Britain and the United States were, especially the latter, which invented the confiscatory tax on “excessive” incomes and fortunes."
Why was this the case? Piketty points to the American egalitarian ideal, which went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy. High taxes, especially on estates, were motivated in part by “fear of coming to resemble Old Europe.” Among those who called for high estate taxation on social and political grounds was the great economist Irving Fisher.
Just to reemphasize the point: during the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer — a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse.
...many people nowadays imagine that redistribution and high taxes on the rich are antithetical to American ideals, indeed practically communism. They have no idea (and wouldn’t believe) that redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie.