[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Phantom said

just go back 50 years in the U.S. to see a nearly ideal Randian society.

1950's -1960's

Very high taxes on the rich,

False. High marginal rates for income but in practice loopholes allowed most to ignore them and the ultra-wealthy simply transitioned their investments to things that yielded "capital gains" (then taxed at less than half todays rate) instead of "income." The high marginal rates in practice affected only those attempting to become wealthy, punishing productivity and rewarding cheating.

strong unions,

Stronger than today, but already in decline and never a primary factor in the price of labor acros the board. Detroit flourished for exactly one reason - the decimation of Europe in WWII gave them such a massive head-start in the industry that it was almost impossible not to make a profit. Today we are reaping the seeds of those malicious unions though - because they created contracts promising things they could never deliver, based on projections that they would always magically dominate the market. Thus, unions were not a driver in the economy but simply able to flourish because of the incredible wealth being generated.

CEO's get about 8 x average wage,

Absolutely irrelevant - companies were smaller, and some CEO's of global companies did in fact get stock options that netted them millions, or even billions.

good infrastructure,

Our infrastructure today is just as good. Not a factor.

high minimum wage,

False - minimum wage was a joke, around $0.70 / hr, and did not apply to small businesses at all. In fact we owe some of the deepness of our current depression to the massive hike of the minimum wage enacted in the past 4 years under Democratic control.[/quote]

good SS safety net

Again false, and absolutely irrelevant to the state of the economy except for the fact that in the 50's and 60's most people still did not live long enough to collect it. That meant that the cost of the program was almost nothing back then compared to today, and so did not require the onerous tax levels and deficit spending of today to keep it afloat. The level of payout was also less, adjusted for inflation, than it is today. If anything this is a great argument for returning to a similar model - moving the "retirement age" to an age such that no more than the same percentage of people who received it then.

Government takes a larger slice of the national pie (GDP)

Not sure how you mean it. Federal expenditures in the 50's & 60's were hovering around 20% of GDP, back when they used a more honest measurement of that figure. Now Federal expenditures are running closer to 40% of our real GDP, choking us in corruption and waste.

Does NOT sound very Randian to me!!

Far fewer and more sensible regulations on business; no minimum wage requirement on small businesses; low taxes and government spending. Yep, As close to Randian as this world has ever seen on a large scale, and kicked the snot out of everything else through our prosperity. By the way, did you know that Rand's chosen symbol was the "$" symbol?

And, given how prosperous we were being CLOSE to a Randian system - just imagine how much wealth would be created if they took it even further?

Does sound good though!

Yes it does - return to the intended Republic, demote the Federal government, and we will all prosper once again.

Ciao!

[Duncan]

False. High marginal rates for income but in practice loopholes allowed most to ignore them
And the difference today is the rich ignore your lower taxes

Unions - I never said they were a driver of the economy just a method to stop the rich hogging the lot

Funny how there is a direct relationship between union power and how well the workers are treated

In the USA you did allow rich people to "buy" some unions - but that is not a failure of unions - just the specific way it was done
More - money = speech

CEO's get about 8 x average wage
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT!!

False - minimum wage was a joke, around $0.70 / hr

Hmmm - New car $400, house, $1000 - $0.70 1960 ~ $35 of 2011 dollars?? or more??


I would also question your infrastructure - most of it was built in the 50's and 60's and has not been updated

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

False - minimum wage was a joke, around $0.70 / hr,

Originally Posted by Duncan

Hmmm - New car $400, house, $1000 - $0.70 1960 ~ $35 of 2011 dollars?? or more??

Just to help quantify/ground some of the estimates with some real numbers and how they've been changing over time with respect to inflation adjusted for the equivalent 2011 $... the highest adjusted rate on record was in 1968 , $1.60/HR back then is worth about ~$10.39/HR in 2011.

Rate from U.S. DoL ... Inflation Adjustment from U.S. DoL

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by Duncan

False. High marginal rates for income but in practice loopholes allowed most to ignore them
And the difference today is the rich ignore your lower taxes

No difference. Stop taxing "income" (which allows politicians to decide what "income" is) and start taxing something objectively measurable (such as retail spending, or net wealth - the latter still prohibited by our Constitution) and most of the cheating will go away.

It is estimated that passage of the FairTax would reduce cheating by 50-90%, and additionally reduce compliance costs (a form of hidden taxation) from 5% of GDP to around 0.5% of GDP.

Unions - I never said they were a driver of the economy just a method to stop the rich hogging the lot

They had no such impact, then or now. All they did was to reduce sales and earnings per share, which might have been paid out as dividends, while adding no net value to the goods and services delivered. Interestingly, since most union retirement funds are in stocks and that stock ownership is frequently the largest single share of stocks owned of a given company, the Unions stole mostly from themselves - causing their retirement funds not to perform sufficiently well to actually fund their long term obligations.

Funny how there is a direct relationship between union power and how well the workers are treated

Again false. Workers' Rights was a key issue before Unions came to be a significant force, and the Unions simply created some press around it to claim credit for changes already in progress. If you read the facts rather than the spin, you will find that most court cases and legislation concerning true improvements in worker conditions had little or no Union involvement.

Taking credit for those improvements was 100% Union Hot Air - not surprising since Unions are primarily a political animal adding zero value to the consumer.

In the USA you did allow rich people to "buy" some unions - but that is not a failure of unions - just the specific way it was done

Sounds like nonsense - got any citations?

More - money = speech

???

CEO's get about 8 x average wage.

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT!!

Utterly Irrelevant. CEOs driving global businesses to dominance earn every penny they receive.

False - minimum wage was a joke, around $0.70 / hr

Hmmm - New car $400, house, $1000 - $0.70 1960 ~ $35 of 2011 dollars?? or more??

Sorry - $0.70 was after the 50's and 60's. I was remembering my time in the 70's working as a bicycle repair person making less than $1/hr.

And again, minimum wage then did not apply to small businesses - thus 90% or more of all workers in 1960 were exempt from those anti-business rules, making them irrelevant to the vast majority of workers. Minimum wage laws are, and always were, political favors to Unions at the expense of our competitiveness. Frankly, many workers aren't worth $0.00 / hr, because overall they cost businesses more than they produce. Minimum wage disguises that fact, preventing employers from providing vital life-feedback to under-performing or non-performing workers.

I would also question your infrastructure - most of it was built in the 50's and 60's and has not been updated

Are you kidding? Certainly there are some bridges still from that era - but a quick look at satellite photos from that era will make it obvious to a child that 75% of our infrastructure is much more recent.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Just to help quantify/ground some of the estimates with some real numbers and how they've been changing over time with respect to inflation adjusted for the equivalent 2011 $... the highest adjusted rate on record was in 1968 , $1.60/HR back then is worth about ~$10.39/HR in 2011.

Rate from U.S. DoL ... Inflation Adjustment from U.S. DoL

Right - keeping in mind that minimum wage applied to less than 10% of workers in 1968 and today applies to nearly 90% of workers, it is inevitable that that number was forced down. Otherwise, American businesses would not be able to hire anyone at all and unemployment would be over 30% or more (government figures) or 60% or more (real figures).

Many people are not worth $0.01 / hr, yet businesses are forced to pay them "minimum wage" until they can fire them (which now can take upwards of 6 months to a year if they don't "figure out" they have a loser in the first 30 days). Too, businesses are legally prohibited from sharing their experiences with some real nut-jobs, making it extremely difficult to determine if you have a gold nugget or a walking psycho applying for a job.

[Duncan]

Stop taxing "income" (which allows politicians to decide what "income" is) and start taxing something objectively measurable (such as retail spending, or net wealth - the latter still prohibited by our Constitution) and most of the cheating will go away.

Bloody Hell!! - I agree with Phantom - I think I will have to go and have a lie down

Not sure about the USA but "Unearned Income" dividends/interest in the UK was taxed higher than earned income

CEOs driving global businesses to dominance earn every penny they receive.

Unfortunately most of them drive them into the ground and still get millions!

Somebody (Mark Twain?) once said that it was easy to find somebody whose work is worth twice as much as another but difficult to find somebody worth six times as much

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Stop taxing "income" (which allows politicians to decide what "income" is) and start taxing something objectively measurable (such as retail spending, or net wealth - the latter still prohibited by our Constitution) and most of the cheating will go away.

Bloody Hell!! - I agree with Phantom - I think I will have to go and have a lie down

Have a Pina Colada on me...

Not sure about the USA but "Unearned Income" dividends/interest in the UK was taxed higher than earned income

Not familiar with the UK's tax laws at all, so have no comment other than this: Think carefully about how they have phrased these words to deceive you. They are politicians, and you can tell when they are lying because their lips are moving.

CEOs driving global businesses to dominance earn every penny they receive.

Unfortunately most of them drive them into the ground and still get millions!

It certainly happens. If it happened all of the time no company would survive. More often than not, large companies survive because the people picking the CEOs have been CEOs themselves (the Board of Directors) and have a vested stake in the profitability of the company (enlightened self-interest).

Somebody (Mark Twain?) once said that it was easy to find somebody whose work is worth twice as much as another but difficult to find somebody worth six times as much

Perhaps. Then there is Apple, which is once again ascendant and owes it almost exclusively to Steve Jobs.

The problem with "super-performance" is that someone who does it once is just as likely to have done it on accident as on skill, and that those who are seeking the help of a super-performer are not themselves super-performers and so don't understand / can't truly recognize a super-performer. That is the irony of the bellcurve of human capability - that to understand someone in the top 0.000001% you have to already be there yourself.

That's why major league ball players get 100x the salary of your average sand-lot player. They aren't 100x better, just 0.00001% better and so draw the adoring crowds.

[Sunking]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Not sure about the USA but "Unearned Income" dividends/interest in the UK was taxed higher than earned income

That is a huge economy killer and fatal mistake. People who invest do so at great risk, and with it comes great rewards when they get it right. Take away the rewards and you choke off the money supply and investment capitol.

[PhantomPholly]

Thread's been silent a while, so I thought I'd post this new report actually pertaining to the OP...

Himalayan Glaciers - no ice lost in past 10 years.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Thread's been silent a while, so I thought I'd post this new report actually pertaining to the OP...

Himalayan Glaciers - no ice lost in past 10 years.

I don't like how the reporter or editor of the article took a reported data reading of 4 billion tons of ice loss annually ... and a direct quote of:

"The total amount of ice lost to Earth's oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water," Wahr said.

And the writer or the editor turns it into 'no ice lost' in the title ... yes it is much less than the 50 Billion tons some had previously predicted for the same glaciers ... but the title is incorrect.

- - - - -
Of course I suspect the previous voiced doubts others made many months ago about how the systems like GRACE used again here in this referenced study work are still held unchanged... I see no point in trying to get into that side of it again... it's been covered... agree or disagree ... either way.