Re: bike light optics

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