Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Reelya]

Historical and pre-historical changes in temperature were much more gradual that what we're seeing though. And the known data makes our pollution output more alarming, not less.

There was for example a siberian super-volcano that pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 250 million years ago, causing the Permian–Triassic extinction event.

That volcano was active for 250000 years. And in that time it pumped about as much CO2 out as humans will within 1 century. Pumping out pollution > 2000 times as fast as a volcano that caused about 80% of all life to go extinct is a great idea.

[mainiac]

hey you guys do realize the whole 'it isn't manmade" thing isn't total bullshit right

*yawn*

Hey guys do you realize the whole "gravity pulls us towards the center of the earth" thing is wrong?  Survival of the fittest is actually a really bad description too.  Newtonian physics is wrong and has been known to be wrong for nearly a century.

[palsch]

A think tank set up to study income inequality deliberately sought out conservatives to contribute. They couldn't get any.

No conservative economists applied for grants, among the 70 submissions the center received, Boushey said. Perhaps that’s because the center has, in its early months of existence, engaged in some high-profile blog-and-social-media fights with conservatives over questions of data and policy when it comes to inequality. Perhaps it’s because it’s relatively rare in Washington for liberal and conservative thinkers to team up to pursue big questions – especially ones that, depending on the answer, could shake party platforms or basic ideological beliefs.

It’s also true, in this case, that a lot of conservative economists have already decided that inequality – as opposed to mobility or the even broader “economic opportunity” – isn’t a problem.

This is the real challenge posed faced by Boushey, and her center, and the work that will now begin thanks to their grants: If most of the research into an economic issue is being conducted from one side of a political debate, consumers of that research could – and should – look skeptically on its conclusions, until persuaded otherwise. The burden is on the researchers, on their data and the stories they tell from it.

It’s a heavy burden. It would help to have a more diverse group of thinkers shouldering it.

In other academic economics news, a group created a metric for CEO performance and compared it to CEO pay.

Spoiler: The results; (click to show/hide)

[10ebbor10]

Can we get a plot on that graph?

[Frumple]

That graph... looks just a titch random. Lil'bit.

[smirk]

My god - it's full of stars!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That graph and its study are ridiculous. Even if a company like Safeway were performing its absolute best in it's environment, they would not be able to come close to the 'stock returns' of a moderately-performing growth-based tech stock. Comparing 'stock return' to CEO pay is the most contrived version of analysis there's ever been, especially since they don't group it by industry. There's also share structure, dividend payments that come into 'return on investment'.


This study implies the only reason you hire CEO is to increase the stock price. That is a highly.. simplified, thought process. I'll argue it's misguided and misses the entire point of management positions. You hire a CEO according to your needs. Some companies already have a high-flying stock and hire a consolidation expert to solidify their company's position. Some companies have a terrible underlying business and hire someone with expertise in restructuring to rebuild organization from the ground up.

Hence why the entire graph is non-information, because its a completely irrelevant comparison

[mainiac]

Yeah that graph is a simplification but the more in depth research indicates that it's mostly about "pay for luck".  Every company thinks it's good so logically their CEO must be above average and deserve above average compensation.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

hey you guys do realize the whole 'it isn't manmade" thing isn't total bullshit right

according to what little i know of this whole situation we've been cycling between ice and super not ice ever since the planet stopped being magma

but then wow absolute arguments on the internet that's amazing it's almost like i've never encountered these before

CO₂ ppm seems correlated with that temperature cycle, (what with the greenhouse effect). The previous record high for the earth was ~330 ppm, we've just broken ~400 ppm.

We were nearing another peak when the industrial revolution took hold and pushed us way over the limit.

[GlyphGryph]

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
By Phil Hirschkorn/CNN

November 9, 1999
Web posted at: 6:24 p.m. EST (2324 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.
     MESSAGE BOARD
Framing The Issues
 

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning.

"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.

"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individual's principal home from the net worth total.

"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.

"The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government $200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.

Trump said depositing $100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate $3 trillion "over the next 30-years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke" and instead keep the fund "solvent through the next century."

The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax "which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else," Trump said.

Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated $5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted.

"Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it," Trump said.

Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business start-ups, more jobs, and more prosperity.

"It is a win-win for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward," Trump said.

[Sirus]

Well, that obviously never happened. I can't imagine why.

[SalmonGod]

Mind = Blown because it's Donald Trump...

At this point I have to wonder.  How many absurdly rich ultra-conservative icons haven't gone on record saying something incredibly economically progressive at some point (long ago)?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not really surprised. Trump has a history of bizarre economic plans. We're talking about the man who came up with the Trillion-Dollar Coin proposal.

[Reelya]

I see the deficit is down quite a bit. Better check my ideological weathervane.

Hmm. Democrat President, Republican Congress, deficit down.

... congress is responsible for the low deficit. The president has no part it in.

[Strife26]

I'm reasonably sure that the trillion dollar coin wasn't Trumph's idea, assuming we're talking about the "sucker punch the entirely ridiculous debt ceiling cliff debate" trillion dollar coin.


All things considered, I don't think that it's an especially bad plan. Bringing taxes on the super-wealthy back in line with their historical levels does not seem like a bad idea.