Bush Administration vs. the Bill of Rights in the SCOTUS

[Joe]

It isn't just conservatives, anyway; according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 64 percent of Americans say they would rather see a smaller government with lower taxes at this point. That includes 53 percent of all Democrats surveyed.

[Patrick Degan]

Jesus fucking christ, I have said over and over again, supply is needed for demand to exist, because one way or another one must produce to demand, but at the same time, one must demand for another to produce. Why are we still arguing that point?

Because you keep ingoring the reason why anybody would be driven to create a supply of anything

How praytell does Adam smith support your interpretation? My interpretation is simpler, and is frankly within better historical context as the concept of a progressive income tax was not even considered until the late 19th century.

No, your interpretation is manufactured out of whole-cloth. And citing when the progressive income tax was conceived does not help your case, since income taxation itself was levied only during wartime prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment. Smith in his text refers to taxation on three sources: wages, property, and profit.

Except they do not receive the same benefits, as even a cursory scan of the tax laws demonstrates —nevermind the fact that they do not receive the same level of protection for property. It is also observable that taxation is a zero-sum operation: if the rich aren't paying taxes, the working classes must do so. If income isn't taxed, it must come from exices or property value or both. If profit isn't taxed, it must come from every other form of taxation. Since the working classes would suffer from having a relatively large proportion of their income assessed, the logic of the situation points toward a larger share falling upon those with the greater ability to pay and who are assured of having a larger financial position afterward even after taxes are paid.

Strawman, I never said there should not be an income tax, or that in our time period, that rich and poor recieved the same benifits. Simply because in Smith's time, and for some time after his death, the concept of a progressive income tax did not exist.

Not a strawman, since you yourself opened the door with the "equality under the law" argument. The rest is plain observation. And I still don't see you citing any textural authority from Smith's work to support your position with any substance.

And frankly, all taxes are, in the end payed by the final consumer. Because a businesman will raise prices to pay his taxes.

The mechanics of prices and profits still impose an ultimate upward limit as to how much of that cost the businessman will pass along and not discourage demand for his product. And it is observable that people will continue to trade in the market no matter how much tax is passed along because people simply can't stop buying things and maintain a reasonable lifestyle. In some cases, such as gasoline, there is virtually no choice in the matter.

[Plekhanov]

It isn't just conservatives, anyway; according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 64 percent of Americans say they would rather see a smaller government with lower taxes at this point. That includes 53 percent of all Democrats surveyed.

Who doesn’t want smaller government, lower taxes and so forth? You may as well ask who would like less crime such polls are only of any validity if they explicitly point out the ramifications of either choice in the question.

[Vympel]

It isn't just conservatives, anyway; according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 64 percent of Americans say they would rather see a smaller government with lower taxes at this point. That includes 53 percent of all Democrats surveyed.

Well yeah, everyone loves lower taxes- it's the "lower taxes are always good" article of faith that I object to.

[Plekhanov]

But tell me, with what money are these people demanding a cure for HIV/AIDS? To demand something, is to be willing and able to purchase it as you hopefully remember.

To get said money, they msut have worked, when one works, they produce something, they produce because someone demanded something, who in turn worked and produced something because someone demanded it.

I listened to a very interesting BBC world service documentary a few months ago about a major South African mining company that was already buying the existing treatments for HIV for (all) their employees (and possibly their families as well I don’t recall) because it made economic sense to do so. I expect they’d buy you’re the cure instead if it was an option.

But even if there were no mining companies are you really suggesting that it isn’t in the West’s interest to develop a cure for HIV. If there wasn’t a domestic market Aids it would still decapacitate a very significant proportion of the working population of Africa and increasingly Asia this will have increasingly destabilising effects upon the world, even if it isn’t in the interests of any single financier to fund a solution to the problem it is definitely in the interests of humanity as a whole to find one. As such Aids presents a powerful case for the necessity of government to occasionally fill the void left by narrowly interpreted Smithsonian economics.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, it is very much within our economic interests to develop a cure. But the fact is, there can be no demand for something which does not exist, there can be WANT for soemthing, but because one cannot pay for something that does not exist, they cannot demand it.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, it is very much within our economic interests to develop a cure. But the fact is, there can be no demand for something which does not exist, there can be WANT for soemthing, but because one cannot pay for something that does not exist, they cannot demand it.

That's insane. You really want to argue that there is no demand for a cure for HIV, whether or not such a medicine exists?!

[kojikun]

PEOPLE

What you need to realize, Patrick, is that when Aly says demand, he means it in the pure economic sense. That is, the ability for some CURRENTLY EXISTING PRODUCT to be bought (in a price vs. quantity sense). You mean it in the general, "Demand for a solution to a problem" sense. So when Aly see's "demand for a cure for HIV", he reads it just like you'd read "Balance between price of Viagra versus the quantity for that price", whereas when you read "demand for a cuer for HIV" you see "willingness of a person to buy something that fits the definition of 'cure for HIV'". See the distinction? Aly is thinking that existing products are the only ones that can be in demand, while you're thinking need capable of being satisfied.

A demand, in economics, involves ones ability to purchase a given product, and if that product does not exist, ability is zero and theres no demand. Thats why economists will say that a person cannot have demand for something if they can't pay for it.

So both of you are right and both of you are wrong. Stop acting like children.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Kojikun hits the nail on the head.

[The Yosemite Bear]

America, land of freedom....?
Heil Bush!
Hiermit melden wir, Machtergreifung vollständig abgeschlossen!


Good that I don't live in the U.S.

don't worry that's stage three of Pax Americana, after we conquer and pillage the rest of north and south america as part of our plan of freeing the world from Narco Terrorists, and Canadian Communist sympatsisers....

[Stuart Mackey]

PEOPLE

What you need to realize, Patrick, is that when Aly says demand, he means it in the pure economic sense. That is, the ability for some CURRENTLY EXISTING PRODUCT to be bought (in a price vs. quantity sense). You mean it in the general, "Demand for a solution to a problem" sense. So when Aly see's "demand for a cure for HIV", he reads it just like you'd read "Balance between price of Viagra versus the quantity for that price", whereas when you read "demand for a cuer for HIV" you see "willingness of a person to buy something that fits the definition of 'cure for HIV'". See the distinction? Aly is thinking that existing products are the only ones that can be in demand, while you're thinking need capable of being satisfied.

A demand, in economics, involves ones ability to purchase a given product, and if that product does not exist, ability is zero and theres no demand. Thats why economists will say that a person cannot have demand for something if they can't pay for it.

So both of you are right and both of you are wrong. Stop acting like children.

Indeed, one must also remember that the real world of supply and demand is not some nice academic equation on a calssroom whiteboard or a textbook case study..
For example: I happen to be part owner of a small company. If I have an idea for 'Product X', first thing I do is I develop it, and cheak that it works. While doing this I also conduct market research to assertain demand for it. If there is no demand I sure as hell will not be doing more than making a working prototype, or at most a limited production run to try and gain market interest.

[Dargos]

wow...from SCOTUS vs Bush to Economics 101 debate.

Amazing...simply amazing.

[Darth Wong]

PEOPLE

What you need to realize, Patrick, is that when Aly says demand, he means it in the pure economic sense. That is, the ability for some CURRENTLY EXISTING PRODUCT to be bought (in a price vs. quantity sense).

Nope, nothing about the economics definition of demand requires that the commodity in question already exist. Services, for example, do not "exist" in any sense until you perform them, which in many cases happens only after you've been paid.

Moreover, this does not substantiate Alyrium's argument, since he claimed that there is no demand until the supply already exists. This is simply bullshit, as demonstrated by numerous real-life examples which disprove his axiomatic claim such as payment for future services, venture capital, etc. Many people can and will pay for something which does not exist yet.