eudemonist
1yr ago
They're not talking about something else, though. Did you read the full conversation? I just quoted that bit (and elided some) because I found Stepho's pulling out a dictionary and President Obama's swift about-face on "words have a meaning" amusing. But prior to that bit, it's quite clear they're discussing a penalty (Shared Responsibility Payment, "responsibility" being the buzzword) for not buying insurance:
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: (evasion evasion)... we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George.
You're correct that in 2012 SCOTUS ruled the penalty (which is what makes the purchase a "mandate" rather than a friendly request) a tax--it's the only way Congress has power to impose such a thing. It's simply amusing because of how hard the administration has pushed "it's not a tax!", then subsequently had to go to court and argue it was a tax.
eudemonist
1yr ago
When neither the proponents nor the opponents of the bill claim it's a proper tax
I'm not sure if you're making a distinction with "proper" tax, but opponents, heck even Democrats, definitely claimed it was a tax, and it was a live enough question to get addressed in a one-on-one (sorry, it's an amp link):
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. that's not true, George. the -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase....
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...
OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
eudemonist
1yr ago
Your examples are actions one is duty-bound to take by the terms of the contract that was entered into, by parking in the spot or by checking out the book. Don't you see the difference?
"Breaking a contract" is an "action", and in either of these cases is directly comparable to petty theft of the equivalent funds--the library has a loss of the use of its book, or the city has loss of its parking space (or remuneration therefor). Someone who never did anything but sit at home, and consequently never used the streets or the library, would never be subject to those fines.
eudemonist
1yr ago
But in those cases, I've parked somewhere, or broken my contract with the library--there is a punishable action.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Yeah, I agree with everything you've said here. "Multiple genes could likely prejudice toward ideologies" is a better way to put it than "liberal gene", with the relative strength of that prejudice tough to decouple.
eudemonist
1yr ago
The government started giving a bunch of money to companies, and telling individuals they must do the same; I didn't give any money to any companies so the IRS made me give them money instead. Questions to determine the amount I had to pay were based on things like AGI, part of my tax calculation, and the resulting amounts were entered back into my tax calculation. If I increased my withholding, I had to write less of a check in April--but I only ever wrote one check, to the same people I'd always written checks to when paying my taxes.
Is there any other thing where one can be "fined" or punished for doing nothing? Aren't negative consequences usually to deter behavior, not compel it?
eudemonist
1yr ago
essentially no one thought of as a "tax."
Wait, what? Who thought that? My sense is that everyone knew it was a tax, but that label had been avoided by proponents of the bill.
It sure felt a lot like a tax, given that it was a box to check or uncheck when filing a federal tax return which changed the amount of the check one had to write to the treasury.
The Corner, but more particularly, The Wire, which is the fully flourished version. Without overstatement, one of the best television shows ever made.
EDIT: Looks like The Corner is on YouTube, free. https://youtube.com/watch?v=iMJMOoW8y6o
eudemonist
1yr ago
The Corner
You've seen the shows?
eudemonist
1yr ago
Very generally speaking, Conservatism is based in risk avoidance: the core conflict is basically a risk/reward evaluation of courses of action, weighing potential benefits of further societal optimization against potential dangers of disrupting a currently-mostly-functional complex dynamic system. It seems like such a thing might well have genetic components.
Individualism vs. Collectivism also seems as though it could well be genetically influenced: different species are gregarious to different extents, and that almost certainly interplays with genetics. Williams syndrome in humans is a clear display of genetic changes to sociability and desire for the presence of others.
Besides, if we accept that genetics affect I.Q., well then obviously--the genes that give the low IQs are the liberal genes, duh! (jkjk don't hurt me)
eudemonist
1yr ago
However, guys who are mainly driven by wanting validation and/or intimacy can sometimes encounter the problem that they want validation for being themselves as they are now, they want intimacy for being as they are now.
I want to take a screwdriver
Mutilate my face
Find a beautiful woman
Make her love me for what I am
Then say I don't need it and walk away
- Hank Rollins
eudemonist
1yr ago
unsubstantiated at best
Nitpicking phrasing (though I disagree overall as well), "at best"? So, at moderate, it's worse than unsubstantiated? Which (to me) means actually the inverse of truth? So, at moderate, mobile quarterbacks are less injury-prone, is the hypothesis?
Brady, Young, Fahurev, his benchwarmer Rogers or whatever, Montana, Aikman, were thus the injury-prone cohort, while the less-injury-prone cohort spearheaded by Randall Cunningham (who in the o-fkn-riginal Madden Football is the greatest player to ever fondle a pigskin), Michael Vick, Cam Newton, and Robert Griffin III's surgical team.
Sorry, I'm being tipsy and a bit smarmy. Base point is that, of the top ten qbs in rush yds/game, two have played 100+ games. Of the top twenty, same two. Top 25 qbs in rush yds/gm, a total of three have played over 100 games.
Statistical analysis fails here because of the changing nature of the game, small sample sizes, and an inordinate number of confounding factors. Some mobility is good and contributes to longevity, but turning the passer into a runner exposes them to blows of a fundamentally different nature than those a passer takes--this isn't theoretical or statistical, but real, in a very tangible way for the guy getting smashed by a few hundred flying pounds. This isn't to say pocket qbs don't get laid out, but the repetitive stresses simply cannot be ignored, and the most holistic grand-scale view possible of "do running qbs hold up?" says, no, they do not. RBs have a lifespan of maybe six years...to play a QB like an RB and expect a twenty year lifespan is foolish.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Out of curiosity, any Mottizens play Herzog Zwei on Genesis? I feel this crowd may have.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Ah, very cool. Sampling is a big part of auditing, as is directionality: vouching, for example, goes from final answer back to source documents, while tracing works the other way, from source to final, in order to verify existence and completeness respectively.
General auditing is directed more toward finding error than fraud, but forensic stuff interests me quite a bit.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Are you an auditor? What you did with the names would be referred to as "vouching": taking a sample from your population and finding the source documents for those in the sample, to verify management's assertion that those transactions actually exist.
eudemonist
1yr ago
From an accounting standpoint, depreciation expense would be the most likely way to offset income for an operation with multiple real properties, coupled of course with under-table cash deals and write offs of questionable "business" expenses. With an array of properties and investment backing, it's easy to grow the company, bring home plenty of dollars, and still be "zero income".
eudemonist
1yr ago
An order in backlog is better than an order that switches to a substitute good, namely a used vehicle. Besides which, Dealer Agreements often are in the form of a promise to buy X units at Y prices over 24 months or whatever, so may limit steep hikes.
From an economic actor standpoint, if I expect price hikes to be temporary, I'm gonna postpone my transaction. If I expect a slow but steady rise in prices, I'm gonna move it forward.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Rarely is it mentioned that Shokin was then replaced with a prosecutor who dropped those prosecutions entirely.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Let the rabbits wear glasses condoms!
eudemonist
1yr ago
I agree, and would suggest an ever better question might be "does a husband have more moral status than a wife?", given his scriptural position of head of household. The relationships are, in my mind, very similar between animal husbandry and familial husbandry.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Many of the metal musicians in my hometown came to know each other through playing together at church, oddly enough. That doesn't make them not atheist, of course, but just a fun tidbit I felt like sharing.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Those are the same bucket. Hispanic isn't considered a race (anymore); most Hispanics are actually white.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Might be good to note that, in the case of No Country For Old Men, Moss' death occurring offstage is true to the source material, the novel by Cormac McCarthy. The film was notable for very tight adherence to the book, almost scene-for scene, and using McCarthy's dialogue line-for-line in many places.
Not showing Moss' death, as part of that keeping to the source, does very much go against "standard" movie storytelling and audience instinct, leaving the viewer with a weird sense of incompletion. Something in our brains likes resolution, a phenomenon we can see in music as well, where chord progressions "return home" and conflicting passages resolve into harmony. McCarthy's subversion of that internal expectation is absolutely intentional, another iteration of the themes of the novel, that our pasts are inescapable and our futures subject to influences beyond control: we don't always, or even most of the time, get things wrapped up tidily with a bow on top, even if they're things we don't like (sad endings for protagonists), and the world moves whether we are paying attention or not. It's a "brave" choice by the filmmakers to stick with the script perhaps, but I don't think Moss' offscreen death is the, or really even a, reason the film is highly regarded.
One thing I would like to add with regard to the climax: the film actually pisses me off a bit in that regard. It's been a while since I've seen it, but as I recall in the film Moss, at his final hotel, is sitting outside drinking a beer when a pretty girl walks by, and he whistles at her or some such. In the novel, Moss picked up a 15-year-old hitchhiker runaway girl headed to California, who offers herself to him for sex, more than once. He books them separate rooms at the ultimate hotel, and the absolute last word we hear from him is him turning the underage runaway down once more:
There's a lot of good salesmen around, and you might buy somethin yet.
Well darlin you're just a little late. Cause I done bought. And I think I'll stick with what I got.
The climax is Moss' internal struggle, really, and it's emphasized again in the description of the gun battle: the Mexican has a gun to the girl's head, and Moss has him in his sights. Moss, being the ultimate Good Guy, puts his gun on the ground. At which point the Mexican shoots the girl, then shoots Moss. The whole hitchhiker subplot (and it's gorgeous dialogue) are all excised, and we end up seeing a lecherous Llewellyn, an ugly representation of our Hero, as the last interaction with him.
Chigurh getting hit by a car is manifestation of, no matter how badass we are, we really don't run shit.
eudemonist
1yr ago
- Inflation is defined as an increase in the general price level.
I think you get off to a bad start here. Changes to prices are not necessarily a result of inflation/deflation, but rather a change in the relative availability of Dollars vs Goods. An increase/decrease in the availability of dollars (inflation) affects prices, but so does a lot of other stuff that isn't inflation.
If, for example, there's a drought and the grain harvest is half of what it usually would be (moving the Supply Curve for grain to the left), grain (and thereby bread, beer, beer, and fuel prices) rise, that's not really inflation per se; conversely, if a new process comes about which enables greater production at the same cost, prices will fall without deflation occurring as competitors
By the same token, if we write in a 0 after the numbers on all our accounts so that everyone has ten times as many dollars, prices will rise without any change in the actual cost of producing a bushel of wheat. THIS is inflation.
Consider the case where the fed wants to create deflation:
There really is no such case as regards actual deflation. As you mentioned, it mostly relates to the velocity of money: if my money will be worth more tomorrow, I have incentive to hold it instead of spend or invest it. Shoving it under my mattress incurs zero risk and zero costs, and makes me MORE WEALTHY tomorrow, without having done anything or accepted any risk. (Imagine the whole country does this, and the money supply shrinks as the Fed lowers the money supply--has anybody actually gotten any wealthier, or created any value, by holding cash? Nah.) If someone can make money with no effort and no risk, they're gonna, because that simply doesn't happen in nature. So everybody waits and demand falls even further because nobody is buying. This is a problem. And we haven't even talked about lending or international trade...
It's a truism of life that all things decay, and that you can't get somethin' for nothin'. In a deflationary environment, my money grows by sticking it under a mattress, a zero-risk zero-cost "getting something". If ya don't "work", ya don't "eat"--doesn't matter if you're a bee, a tree, a human, or a dollar.
The current system IS prejudiced, but the prejudice is toward people who pay their debts on time. This correlates to wealthiness, but isn't necessarily causative. Paying small amounts on time gives one preference when borrowing larger amounts, and leveraging larger amounts is how people get wealthy.
Would you agree that borrowing a library book is a type of contract one enters into with the library?
More options
Context Copy link