Warren Buffet speaks common sense; alarms most Republicans

[Asher]

People like Asher who (I'm sorry) don't understand economics whatsoever tend to fall for a particular trap when it comes to wealth in a currency-based society, and they end up with the following fallacy:

I understand the basics of economics, but you do not understand the basics of debate. Don't infer things to make your argument easier.

I perfectly understand that the vast majority of Buffett's wealth isn't in cash and isn't in wealth for the taking.

I am speaking of his actual income, which he is as well. Please read the debate and focus on reality, not strawmen.

I accept your apology in advance.

[Jaguar]

Uhh... taxing Warren Buffet prevents him from making investments, making room in the country's productive capacity for whatever the government buys with the money.

Over the long term, sure. Over the short term, the factories and real estate and other such investments that Buffett owns through Berkshire Hathaway don't disappear. I tried to keep the post as simple as possible, and you were not the intended audience.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

it's not about numbers next to whoever, it is about filling in the bottomless hole... if the poor and middle classes are contributing a certain portion of their income to it, so should should the upper classes - what is wrong with that approach? Absolutely nothing, and it is just a principle... that this would not resolve world hunger or US deficit, but it is one of the steps in the direction... or on the other hand another solution would be to bring the working and middle classes effective tax rates down to the investor class levels... except that I wander what would that do to the government income ...

another alternative for low taxation while working, and having a slew of excellent governmental services at disposal is a move to Switzerland

[Asher]

it's not about numbers next to whoever, it is about filling in the bottomless hole... if the poor and middle classes are contributing a certain portion of their income to it, so should should the upper classes - what is wrong with that approach? Absolutely nothing, and it is just a principle...

Jaguar fell into the common fallacy of people who wish to avoid comprehending morality...pretending the issue is something else and it's just that other people do not understand.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Kuciwalker]

I understand the basics of economics

You've repeatedly shown this is not true. Jaguar didn't have to make any assumptions.

[Jaguar]

I understand the basics of economics

No, I'm sorry, you don't. In your ridiculous oil embargo thread, you were still running around with ideas that Harold Hotelling discredited in the mid-1930s. You posit things that nobody intelligent in the field has taken seriously for eighty years.

I perfectly understand that the vast majority of Buffett's wealth isn't in cash and isn't in wealth for the taking.

Are you sure? If so, why are you so eager to tax him?

[Kuciwalker]

it's not about numbers next to whoever, it is about filling in the bottomless hole... if the poor and middle classes are contributing a certain portion of their income to it, so should should the upper classes - what is wrong with that approach?

Does doing so actually improve the lot of the poor or the middle class? (No.)

[Asher]

You've repeatedly shown this is not true. Jaguar didn't have to make any assumptions.

No, I've demonstrated a different philosophy in ecomomics than you do. That's not to say I do not have the basic understanding of economics.

If anything it demonstrates you do not have a comprehensive understanding of economics, because you truly feel it is cut and dry and can be 100% accurately represented in spreadsheets and models.

It's a position based out of academic strength and real-world ignorance.

[Asher]

No, I'm sorry, you don't. In your ridiculous oil embargo thread, you were still running around with ideas that Harold Hotelling discredited in the mid-1930s. You posit things that nobody intelligent in the field has taken seriously for eighty years.

I really appreciate how you are so brazen in your pretentiousness while you aptly avoid saying anything of substance.

Are you sure? If so, why are you so eager to tax him?

Personal income is personal income. Why should his income be taxed at a lower rate than anyone else?

To be honest, I'm tremendously alarmed by the groupthink and collective arrogance and ignorance of the finserv click here. I've worked with tons of people like you.

You and your ilk are incredibly dangerous because you think you can scientifically understand economics and build theories and models which completely and totally reflect the real world behaviour of humans at large. It's a fallacy, and it's precisely why you guys keep ****ing up the US economy.

At what point do you start to get it?

[Kuciwalker]

No, I've demonstrated a different philosophy in ecomomics than you do. That's not to say I do not have the basic understanding of economics.

If anything it demonstrates you do not have a comprehensive understanding of economics, because you truly feel it is cut and dry and can be 100% accurately represented in spreadsheets and models.

It's a position based out of academic strength and real-world ignorance.

You are confusing 'folk wisdom based on no evidence' with 'real-world knowledge'.

[Kuciwalker]

[11:22] Jaguar: lol sir asher is pulling the "my folk economics are wooer than your fancy-pants ivory tower stuff"
[11:22] Jaguar: he's the equivalent of the people who ask you to fix their computer and then claim that because you replaced a printer cartridge their email stopped forwarding.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

no, but if they increased the tax on their income for 20% and reduced the tax for the poor and middle classes in proportion, than it would ... I don't have the figures but I doubt that the sums are negligible.

[Kuciwalker]

In his pretensions to wisdom Asher has studiously avoided describing any mechanism by which taxing Warren Buffet would increase the quantity of goods and services available to other people.

[Asher]

[11:22] Jaguar: lol sir asher is pulling the "my folk economics are wooer than your fancy-pants ivory tower stuff"
[11:22] Jaguar: he's the equivalent of the people who ask you to fix their computer and then claim that because you replaced a printer cartridge their email stopped forwarding.

I did spend 2 1/2 years at Lehman Brothers and I've been investing myself for 8 years now, you act like all I've experienced is a minimum wage job.

Meanwhile, you two are fresh grads from silver-spoon roots living with roommates and working entry level positions (if Jaguar is even employed at all?).

Your arrogance will be your undoing, just like it was for the traders I knew well at Lehman. Even as Lehman was crashing down, Dick Fuld was still in the same disillusion you lot are in.

Wall St (and its philosophical comrades) are really a prime example of the dangers of groupthink. Notice how Jaguar even goes over IM to reaffirm their beliefs rather than discussing it here in the open like a real man would.

I'm under no delusion that I will convince you guys of anything. I do not think you are reasonable people. But I'm certain most people reading this can see the flaws with your "ivory tower" economic theories.

[Kuciwalker]

no, but if they increased the tax on their income for 20% and reduced the tax for the poor and middle classes in proportion, than it would ... I don't have the figures but I doubt that the sums are negligible.

How would that result in the poor and middle classes getting more goods and services? Warren Buffet would not consume fewer (he still has plenty of money), you haven't explained how this would result in the total quantity produced by our society increasing, therefore the same quantity must still be available to the poor and middle classes as before and no one's lot is improved.