發表評論 評論 (366 個評論)
- 回復 smartman
- you were comparing the welfare benefits and military expenses.
葉哥: ok, my original quote is:
"MEDICARE現費用約5000億。比起軍費及戰爭費用差遠了。"
as i mentioned above, yearly military expense alone is ...
1. you listed almost all major military expenses (actually you still missed a few small portions dedicated to military use, e.g., partial airspace budget for military purposes).
2. you need to include all welfare benefits, not just medicare. social security and medicalcaid are too major pieces, in addition to many other small pieces. so, you missed social security expense at least.
after you add social security expense into your welfare expense, your welfare is well over $1trn. and this number grows more than 10% annually.
on the other hand, if we could stop the 2 wars, the military expenses would be cut by $300bn annually.
nite nite~- 回復 smartman
- i explained in the previous reply window.
葉哥: i am a lay person indeed, my only economic training was my "Political Economy" class. so if i make mistake, please bear with me.
i was ...
- 回復 葉哥
- need i repeat? this is my original post:
smartman: you were comparing the welfare benefits and military expenses.
1. you listed almost all major military expenses (actually you still missed a few sma ...
"MEDICARE現費用約5000億。比起軍費及戰爭費用差遠了"
and you say:
"you were comparing the welfare benefits and military expenses."
my friend, please do not put your words into my mouth. i will not eat them!!!!
- 回復 smartman
- your purpose is to show welfare is not as large as military expense. if you use a portion of welfare to compare with the overall military expense, you are comparing apple to orange and making misleading conclusions!
葉哥: need i repeat? this is my original post:
"MEDICARE現費用約5000億。比起軍費及戰爭費用差遠了"
and you say:
"you were comparing the ...
when economists look at the whole picture, we include all subitems under each category. that is professional approach.
- 回復 Charlie2003
- 首先我不能像你那樣斷章取義的截我之前某句話出來，再進行分析！這很容易誤導他人。然後我根據你第一斷意思大概回復下，你說你是經濟學家，這很好，我太太是長期從事微觀經濟學的碩士，我呢大學學得是會計，工作一些時間后根據工作再學得是通信領域的市場學碩士。由於之前工作涉及到很多政治經濟學東東，再加上我太太所研究一些我認為可以推向市場的東西都是我來做的，所以我對宏觀的政治經濟是熟悉的。不存在你所說我可能在某些方面不了解你所寫的東西，當然有些觀點要表達出來太長，太占時間我同意，但我也是盡量擠時間出來寫，因為我認為這對我是個促進，特別是我崇尚理論和實踐相結合（我喜歡工作一些時間后帶著問題再去學習）。
smartman: 1. 針對我的宏觀的觀點你一直是避而不答，動不動就「why」！
i don't know what topics i avoided. i am pretty much an economist and in my daily assignmen ...
第二斷就進入正題了，你回答而且也認為慢慢消減工會實力，有可能工作會回來，這是個長期過程，你還舉了GM的例子等等。這裡我不知道你是宏觀經濟學家還是微觀經濟學家，但你好像有意無意忽略了我所說的「很多工廠會污染環境等等一系列原因」。從微觀來說你舉GM的例子是對的，沒有錯。可是你不能忽略有大量污染但能產生大量工作的工廠已經移出美國本土的事實，這些工廠甚至包括了GM的供應商。你能把它們都搬回美國本土嗎？退一步，就算你口中所謂的「低素質人口」肯從事這樣的工作，資本家和美國政府也不讓的，為什麼？他們家在美國啊（誰想要一個污染嚴重的美國，你想嗎），更不用說還會帶來一系列的社會保險和醫療問題。這是工會的問題嗎？一個GM能解決這麼多工作嗎？可以說美國所有的汽車和高科技企業都解決不了這個問題，這明顯和工會是無關的。
第三斷就更好評論了，你所謂的「低素質人口」不想去從事低成本的工作（我這裡也包括了污染企業）。當然你也說了，他們不想從事低工資工作，因為可以從政府免費拿到相等收入。這裡我就產生了一個巨大的問號，他們真得是「低素質人口」嗎，如果你從事過這些工作，你就知道收入和付出是不相等的。我為了實踐是去從事過這些工作的，最後發現我的收入還不夠我付醫療費用的（雖然西方有些地方看病不要錢，但吃藥要錢吧），更不用說養家了。真的，我回到我善長的工作時，不但賺了更多的錢，還從沒看過病（幫國家省了不少醫療投入）。當我從事了這樣的工作時才知道你所謂的「低素質人口」的素質不低，試想想你賺到的收入還不夠吃藥錢，你為什麼不去政府拿福利，這樣還不用看病，還能養家。「為什麼你們資本家就能拿到不相等的利潤，我們就要拼死拼活，最後還不能養家呢，就因為你有個好爸爸？」這是我在工廠工作時有個同事和我說的話，我無言可答，因為確實我有個當醫生的好爸爸，我和這個同事付出相等的努力后我的選擇機會就比他多得多。我到現在也不覺得他素質低（最後他選擇了拿福利，平時做點拿現金的工作）。大家要知道國家打仗是這些你所謂「低素質人口」去拚命的，又臟又累的活也是你所謂「低素質人口」去做的（拿福利，平時做點拿現金的工作都是低端工作）。你又有什麼資格去說他們是「低素質人口」呢，就因為你有個好爸爸嗎！一個國家不可能只有精英，而沒有下層人士的，然道我錯了嗎？？？
第四點，你把美國面臨工程師短缺問題歸納為政府教育系統問題，想另談。我只能告訴你這不能另談，前面所說那些污染工廠不可能回到美國了，現在美國高科技企業又要搬到國外了，這能另談嗎？然道還有高不成低不就的公司能解決美國所有就業問題？而且這個問題還不能歸罪為政府不行，是人都知道全世界都在向美國教育學習，美國教育都出問題了，其他國家怎麼回事？有外星人幫忙？這是在否定歷屆美國政府在教育上所作出的努力，出問題的是美國人都知道擇業盡量選擇文藝或體育，因為這樣賺錢多還容易出名。有錢人小孩選擇文藝（當然還有其它），窮人家小孩選擇體育，誰還會選擇枯燥無味的理工科。我們能把這歸罪於「高素質」或「低素質」人的錯嗎？要說錯大家都有錯。
第五條，現在已經不是非法移民和技術移民的問題了，根據美國現狀。就算美國大量引進技術人才都解決不了問題了，因為資本家不幹了。你想想資本家引進一個人才要多大成本，還不是只有這個人的問題，附帶這個人後面一系列問題加成本都要考慮進去。作為資本家為什麼不把這個人的工作放到他所在國去，這樣資本家能把成本和政府打交道所產生的問題控制在最低，資本家又不傻，他為什麼不這樣做。同樣道理，這樣的技術人才拿所在國的高工資，又不用離開自己熟悉環境，他為什麼要到美國來，來到美國還要解決家人等等很多問題，誰會來？現在資本家有一個很好的理由，因為美國面臨工程師短缺，我必須把工作搬到人才多的地方去。等你有了人才我再搬回來，問題是人才來嗎？最多有些人來交流一些時間，回去的肯定是大多數，誰會有不錯收入的情況下背井離鄉，人才也不傻。
最後到了福利問題了，我同意之前美國政府給的福利現在想拿回來是很難了你這個觀點。當然你還把這個過錯放到羅斯福身上，沒錯，如果這是「過錯」的話，羅斯福應該承擔。其實按你的邏輯里根是不能和羅斯福比的，按教育背景來說羅斯福可是個「高素質」的總統，里根怎麼能改他的錯誤呢！我記得一位IBM總裁在回憶他父親的書中寫過羅斯福當時的「過錯」，大概意思是：「他父親IBM的創始人在當時帶著很多資本家的投訴去見羅斯福總統，告訴總統資本家這樣那樣的困難。羅斯福總統當場回應他，我現在沒時間去考慮你們的困難，整個國家和人民都處在困難當中，先解救的應該是他們，然後才能輪到你們，否則國家滅亡美國資本家也好不到哪去（我估計當時他們討論了很久）。反正事實是討論過後，IBM的創始人由羅斯福總統的反對者變成了其堅定的支持者」。我個人觀點，正因為羅斯福總統在當時實行的國家資本主義政策，挽救了美國。使得美國中下層人士團結在資本家周圍一起過渡了當時的難關，熬過這個時期，經濟好轉后，才能實行有利於資本家的政策。天佑美國，出了羅斯福這麼好的總統！如果說有過錯的話，只能說他身體太差了。大家可以看看「美國向何處去：革命？」文章，裡面也有類似的觀點http://my.backchina.com/chineseblog/201111/user-250969-message-128804-page-1.html
最後總結一下，和你的爭論使我在現階段怎樣解決美國問題辦法的思路越來越清晰了（我崇尚理論和實踐相結合，總是看到美國的問題而找不到解決辦法是不行的）。美國除了減窮人福利和消減工會實力等，還是有其它路可以走的，如果只是停留在「減窮人福利和消減工會實力」這個大方向，哪怕是長期政策也只會導致分裂美國。等我思路完全清晰盡量寫寫美國其它路怎樣走，反正我是不贊成過多激化美國中下層和資本家之間矛盾。
- 回復 wcat
- http://my.backchina.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=286159&do=blog&id=128680
smartman: show example! do not use empty slogan!
what loopholes did Obama find but republicans refused to revise? give us examples, eh?
Obama simply wants t ...
- 回復 wcat
- 看這兒吧：http://my.backchina.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=286159&do=blog&id=128680
nierdaye: 漏洞永遠有，有些所謂的漏洞的設計，使有一定的道理的。
- 回復 smartman
- don't have time to answer today. i am surprised you emphasized so much on polluted manufacturer jobs and go to the extreme.
Charlie2003: 首先我不能像你那樣斷章取義的截我之前某句話出來，再進行分析！這很容易誤導他人。然後我根據你第一斷意思大概回復下，你說你是經濟學家，這很好，我太太是長期 ...
1. pollution-related job is only a non-significant portion of job market. why did you bring it out again and again?
2. when i say jobs will return to US under ... assumption, i never mean all jobs. please do not abuse my statement.
- 回復 smartman
- hahahaha, you are abusing all these cliches to defend your unfounded argument?!
Warren Buffett付的個人所得稅率比他的秘書還低，他本人都覺得十分不合理。
you can't expect everyone rich person to 100% agree with any policy. among so many rich persons, how many complain? please give me a headcount.
besides, do not forget buffet's secretary must be paid well and her husband has a decent salary. that combined income gets her into higher tax bracket.
if you ever follow buffet (I did it for 10+ years), you would know a major trick of buffet's is save tax. his return would be mediocre if he is not good at tax saving.
plus, do you know how much tax buffet paid last year? and, how much tax his secretary paid? give me the number if you know and you can easily find the truth. if you can't give, i'll tell you instead.
2010年至少有25個大公司付給其CEO多於所交的聯邦稅，這其中包括GE,Verizon, eBay, Boeing, Prudential Financial, International Paper Company, 等等。這些公司在去年都有巨額利潤，許多不但沒有交稅，還從聯邦政府得到許多refunds。具體報告可見：http://www.ips-dc.org/files/3552/Executive-Excess-CEO-Rewards-for-Tax-Dodging.pdf
石油公司在高油價下，每個季度都是巨額利潤。但它們都在享受著聯邦政府的巨額補貼。
do not mix up corporate with individual tax. that is corporate taxation. a coimpletely different issue. US corporate tax is above average in developed country. why don't you read yesterday's news that mcdonald CEO asked obama to reduce corporate tax because 1. US corp taxt is high; 2. it stops economic recovery and kills jobs.
i agree some corporates should be levied high tax, especially oil companies. but do not make a mountain out of a mouse hole here.
華爾街大財團一手拿著政府的救濟金，另一手給他們的高層管理人員發巨額獎金。幾乎就在獎勵他們把公司搞糟了。
1. did you know their bonus is cut signifciantly? do you know their numbers before and after crisis? do you know which Wall Street CEO gets the highest bonus last year? but, his bonus is cut deeply compared to 4 years ago, and his bonus was dwarfed by CEOs in other industry?
2. did you know these big banks paid back all of their government support plus offering very decent interest to government? they even buy back givernment warrants and give government very good returns? do you know that? do you know these numbers? if you don't know, i can tell you. eventually, government makes tons of money from wall street banks. do you know that, eh???
- 回復 wcat
- 稅率隨著收入增加而增加幾乎在任何國家都是如此，你不能不說這是個漏洞！
smartman: hahahaha, you are abusing all these cliches to defend your unfounded argument?!
Warren Buffett付的個人所得稅率比他的秘書還低，他本人都覺得十分不合理。 ...
GE在2010年根本就沒付聯邦稅，這正常嗎？除了GE，另外還有幾個公司也是如此。這正常嗎？
AIG都幾乎垮了，拿了救濟金就給許多人發獎金，這正常嗎？
- 回復 smartman
- haha, you could not answer my questions to ask you list the number? i asked you quite a few but you did not answer me any signl one, instead, you changed examples and topics.
wcat: 稅率隨著收入增加而增加幾乎在任何國家都是如此，你不能不說這是個漏洞！
GE在2010年根本就沒付聯邦稅，這正常嗎？除了GE，另外還有幾個公司也是如此。這正常嗎 ...
okay, let me answer your new topics and examples.
1. warren buffet paid around $650mm tax last year. his tax rate is around 27% (to my knwoledge).
do you think 27% is low? how much rate did you pay last year?
tell you what, his secretay must be well paid plus a wealthy husband. otherwise, she can't beat bueffet's taxt rate.
obama and media never mentioned that. but if you use your head, not your toes to think about it and, more importantly, READ AND CALCULATE NUMBERS, you should get your own coinclusion.
do not be mislead by media and blindly complain ...
2. do you know why GE did not pay heavy corporate tax? do your own research before you make your claim. if you can't find it out, i'll tell you the reason why in next posting. don't forget US coporate tax rate is higher than most developed country. overall, you should NOT complain corporate tax.
don't simply use one example to conclude. plus, do not forget to do you own research on thsi single example you proposed. i tell you, even fo this single example, you are TOTALLY wrong! if you can't find it out why you are wrong, i'll tell you next time.
3. tell you the truth, using AIG is not a good exmaple that helps you. if you use Fannie and Freddie, you might have partially valid reasons.
3A. how much bonus AIG give to its employees? 10%. that has already signifciantly cut bonus pool. why did't you know?
3B. it was gov's fault, not AIG's fault. gov did not forbid anything while at that time gov holds over 70% shares. gov was running to give bonus. so, go to white house to complain.
3C. aig is trying to pay back to gov. it hs pay back a large portion. i estimate in 3 to 5 years, it will and gov will earn handsome return from the money it put into AIG.
finally, as a test to see whether you are doing your own research before you accuse blindly, can you please tell me, the TARP fund government used to support financial institution is losing mony or earning money? if losing money, where is it lost heavily? if earning money, where is it gained handsomely?
after you do your own research, you will find your answer will substantially reduce your validity to complain and occupy Wall Street.
- 回復 wcat
- warren buffet paid about 17%
smartman: haha, you could not answer my questions to ask you list the number? i asked you quite a few but you did not answer me any signl one, instead, you ch ...
The fact that the law allows GE not paying the tax, that is wrong and it needs to be fixed.
AIG paid more than 10 bonus when it received the money from the government, that is a fact.
- 回復 smartman
- 1. do you know why buffet get low tax rate? what is his trick?
wcat: warren buffet paid about 17%
The fact that the law allows GE not paying the tax, that is wrong and it needs to be fixed.
AIG paid more than 10 bonus ...
2. do you know law GE used? is it abusive or reasonable?
3. i meant, many AIG's employee bonus is 10% of its pre-crisis level. if they work 60 - 80 hours week, is that reasonable?
don't worry. AIG will pay back gov money plus good return in 3 to 5 years at most.
so, why did you insist on these tiny, unsupported examples? tell me the results of TARP and government's benefits from TARP? eh?
- 回復 wcat
- 1. It does not matter how he did and it is legal. That is wrong and the law needs fixed.
smartman: 1. do you know why buffet get low tax rate? what is his trick?
2. do you know law GE used? is it abusive or reasonable?
3. i meant, many AIG's ...
2. Again, the law is wrong and needs fixed.
3. When they made such mess, American people need to reward them? What logic is that?
- 回復 smartman
- 1. you are short of knowledge but blindly follow the media. always ask why? get the precise info and use your own judgement. given your silly attitude, i am not going to teach you why buffet saves millions of tax and why it is reasonable and why the tax rule did more help than harm to the country.
wcat: 1. It does not matter how he did and it is legal. That is wrong and the law needs fixed.
2. Again, the law is wrong and needs fixed.
3. When they ...
short-sighted blinds look at results but is brainless to analyze reasons.
2. you did not know which law it is? how do you judge? again, i am not going to teach you which tax law GE used and why that law is helpful to this country.
3. first, open up your biased eyes and look at more banks. do not just stick to aig. citi, bofa, goldman, chase, etc., all paid back government money with handsome return. got it?
even if for aig, that is their hardwork to get tiny bonus on average. remember, they will pay back with decent return in 3 to 5 years.
4. remember, aig did not get rewarded by american people. obama government ran aig and gave bonus. so, go to white house, but n0t wall street to protest. what is your silly logic?
- 回復 鍋爐爺爺
- I think your original statement was something like 46% of people depend on the government for handouts, I am glad you're now toning it down to "they contributed little or none". But still, you seem to think that just because they make little money they don't have the rights to protest, and this kind of thinking is simply dangerous.
smartman: they pay other taxes such as sales tax (in most of 50 states, but not in every state).
while they do not pay fed income tax, most of them get earned ...
You over-generalized the protesters as people who try to demand money from the government. Admittedly, the messages from these protesters are very diverse, but I found it interesting you didn't mention a central message of the protest, which is to hold accountable those who brought us this mess.
- 回復 wcat
- Maybe you work in Wall Street and you say from your point of view. It does not matter what law GE used, the results are wrong which means the law has loophole and needs to be fixed. Republican refuse to fix it, that is the fact!
smartman: 1. you are short of knowledge but blindly follow the media. always ask why? get the precise info and use your own judgement. given your silly atti ...
AIG was not ran by government, Government saved AIG. It should not use TAXPAYERS' money to reward those people who made mess in the company, in the economy of this country and whole world. BTW, AIG is just one of them.