Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: bike light optics
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:41:27 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <uusfia$2aj45$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uuk938$3icl$1@dont-email.me> <uukbbn$42v9$3@dont-email.me>
 <uukcfb$3tspr$1@dont-email.me> <jrjPN.617728$Rq2.250265@fx15.ams4>
 <uumsuu$qiga$3@dont-email.me> <zyDPN.635506$Rq2.626274@fx15.ams4>
 <uun21g$rv7k$1@dont-email.me> <rxGPN.525218$jO2.46696@fx10.ams4>
 <uunli6$13usc$1@dont-email.me> <FPPPN.269588$Tp2.235755@fx03.ams4>
 <uup543$1esl6$1@dont-email.me> <uupacr$1g40b$2@dont-email.me>
 <gdc01jt1kv6du02fpdcgla46gqi2p0m7i2@4ax.com> <uupe8p$1h30i$1@dont-email.me>
 <ssg11j51k1a6f5kk3enka6ivqr8lpc3sgs@4ax.com> <uurf3j$22sur$1@dont-email.me>
 <uurqdl$25ehk$2@dont-email.me> <uus12i$274o6$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 21:41:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d658c096731bdd84e5f8d96a16809a09";
	logging-data="2444421"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188B7Bjubu3YxkpxJKOo0PDitHTbt25OnM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a3yIkZ3gaF2qIDjtycPDzTzSWNc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uus12i$274o6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7158

On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>>>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.  This has worked
>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners).  If you
>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the 
>>> incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI Amendment. 
>>> Predictably the situation has degraded such that more than half of us 
>>> pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., 
>>> they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also 
>>> predictably election results reflect the avarice and envy of the 
>>> takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural divisions 
>>> to our greater loss.  There has to be a better way. And there was.
>>
>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which 
>> leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation 
>> in ways you like?
>>
>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate 
>> far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated 
>> benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more 
>> content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem to 
>> be far fewer problems than we have.
>>
>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S. 
>> did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally 
>> different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs, 
>> personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's 
>> just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the 
>> vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
>>
> 
> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.
> 
> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural 
> failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth 
> increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and 
> 1914.
> 
> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the 
> actual data:
> 
> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
> 
> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official 
> numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical, walking 
> around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no longer 
> negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society.  Economists 
> have noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.

Nice try, but you really didn't address my points.

You said "the original constitution had a better ethos." I tried to 
explain that the original constitution had severe problems, and we're 
never going back to it, for good reasons. Besides, let's remember that 
every change in the constitution was, in effect, approved by the 
constitution. It does specify a mechanism for changes, which is the 
opposite of "Thou must never improve this document."

Also note, I didn't say "income disparity." I said "economic disparity." 
There is a difference.

And your linked article is remarkably non-specific. It alludes to data 
that it claims isn't counted, but it doesn't seem to be a source of much 
of that data. I suppose they want me to buy that book, but they could 
certainly have provided a bit more detail to convince me.

Regarding the surge in U.S. economics between 1865 and 1914: The U.S. 
was in a pretty unique position in the world. By 1865, the original 
inhabitants of the U.S. had been pretty thoroughly wiped out. The few 
remaining were mostly confined on reservations. Their land was given 
away or sold cheaply, and the resources on that land were up for grabs.

And being at the dawn of the industrial age, the U.S. had the technology 
to take advantage of a continent full of untapped resources. So people 
like Carnegie could purchase, control and use vast amounts of resources, 
and make money using the new technology and the very inexpensive labor 
of countless immigrants drawn in part by the promise of former Indian 
land - even if that land was a small plot inside a city.

Those were huge advantages, ones that other countries lacked at least in 
part. So I think the U.S. would have succeeded very well even with a 
markedly different constitution or political system.

Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other nations I 
mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that many European nations 
have a far more contented population than the U.S., plus lower crime 
rates, less violence, more economic security, etc. Much of those are 
attributed to a different attitude toward taxation, wealth and social care.

It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income, wealth and benefit 
rules. But let me ask again: Since you're complaining about the American 
set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you 
like about it and why?

-- 
- Frank Krygowski