Speech by Dr. Ben Carson at Nat'l Prayer Breakfast

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]

And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]

No, I wrote a thesis on this shit and this rests on the assumption that utility is cardinal and commensurable.

[/quote]

Off the bat, let’s start with the fact that you know more about this than I do.

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?

42

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?[/quote]

Depends what happens next year, and the year after next etc etc etc.

Speaking in terms of Romney, his income supply could run dry. Bam 2 or 3 big busts, Bain gets less investors and they go to shit in 5 years. Sells his houses, cars etc… And in 10 years, he is broke and giving handies at a rest stop on Route 3 to feed Ann.

You on the other hand, go on to get steady employment, have had 6 raises in those same 10 years and are still net ahead adjusted for inflation with job security that your check is coming in…

In that instance, he needs his 10% more.

43

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?[/quote]

Depends what happens next year, and the year after next etc etc etc.

Speaking in terms of Romney, his income supply could run dry. Bam 2 or 3 big busts, Bain gets less investors and they go to shit in 5 years. Sells his houses, cars etc… And in 10 years, he is broke and giving handies at a rest stop on Route 3 to feed Ann.

You on the other hand, go on to get steady employment, have had 6 raises in those same 10 years and are still net ahead adjusted for inflation with job security that your check is coming in…

In that instance, he needs his 10% more. [/quote]

Fair enough, but if we were to speak about the past: had an extra ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income been confiscated over the course of the past ten years…

In other words, assuming that his revenue streams remain more or less in place.

44

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]

And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]

No, I wrote a thesis on this shit and this rests on the assumption that utility is cardinal and commensurable.

[/quote]

Off the bat, let’s start with the fact that you know more about this than I do.

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?[/quote]

Thats impossible to say, you ask for a way to measure happyness.

45

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]

And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]

No, I wrote a thesis on this shit and this rests on the assumption that utility is cardinal and commensurable.

[/quote]

Off the bat, let’s start with the fact that you know more about this than I do.

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?[/quote]

Thats impossible to say, you ask for a way to measure happyness. [/quote]

And yet the answer is very clear.

46

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]

And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]

No, I wrote a thesis on this shit and this rests on the assumption that utility is cardinal and commensurable.

[/quote]

Off the bat, let’s start with the fact that you know more about this than I do.

Now–it cannot be converted into a series of mathematically-precise measurements, but humor me for a moment: is a ten-percent parcel of Mitt Romney’s income as essential to his continued ability to live independently and happily as a ten-percent parcel of mine is to my own?[/quote]

Thats impossible to say, you ask for a way to measure happyness. [/quote]

And yet the answer is very clear.[/quote]

No its not, because if you accept that value is ordinal and strictly subjective which makes value creation through specialization and trade even possible you must reject the idea of measuring peoples happyness comparatively.

You cannot have it both ways.

Furthermore, since you reasoning is necessarily utilitarian in that regard, you immediately run into the problem that you disincentivice the creation of wealth by redistribution.

Now, you might be willing to do that, but than you are substituting your priorities for someone elses, time preference in this instance, or you go the more “objective” route of postulating some side rules to complement your utilitarianism just so that your subjective versions of “justice” wins out in the end.

Thats not really ethics, that is formalized wishful thinking.

I could destroy any of your attempts to put that into a coherent system, utilitarianism, average utilitarianism, you name it, its worthless.

47

[quote]orion wrote:

Furthermore, since you reasoning is necessarily utilitarian in that regard, you immediately run into the problem that you disincentivice the creation of wealth by redistribution.

[/quote]

This isn’t about redistribution. I will respond to the rest of it later tonight.

48

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Furthermore, since you reasoning is necessarily utilitarian in that regard, you immediately run into the problem that you disincentivice the creation of wealth by redistribution.

[/quote]

This isn’t about redistribution. I will respond to the rest of it later tonight.[/quote]

Then you would be a utilitarian libertarian which is a position Mises held and which Rothbard demonstrated to be untenable.

49

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Simple but powerful speech Dr Carson delivers. Well worth the time. Watch it.

[/quote]

Great talk.

Just wonderful. I listened to it while working so I missed any good facial expressions by Bam.

50

Some truthful humor.

51

I thought Mr Carson did an excellent job. I am leaning more and and more towards a flat tax or even a graduated flat tax meaning every body pays the same rate for the same dollar . Health Insurance started out as nonprofit . It started out as a pool of money where everybody paid the same rate and got the same coverage . Then profit reared it’s ugly head and we have today’s system.

But over all I liked Mr Carson .I saw nothing of the partisanship others seemed to see. He painted the Democrats and the Republicans with the same brush which I thought was refreshing

52

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

So, you agree that 1 dollar is more valuable to a person with ten dollars than 1 dollar is to a person with a million?

All you have to do is keep following the logic :slight_smile:

53

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

So, you agree that 1 dollar is more valuable to a person with ten dollars than 1 dollar is to a person with a million?

All you have to do is keep following the logic :)[/quote]

If you actually wanted to make a point, you should change the second part to 100k to a person with a million.

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Simple but powerful speech Dr Carson delivers. Well worth the time. Watch it.

[/quote]

Great talk.

Just wonderful. I listened to it while working so I missed any good facial expressions by Bam. [/quote]

I watched most of it , it appeared to me Bam gave his thought process consideration

55

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Simple but powerful speech Dr Carson delivers. Well worth the time. Watch it.

[/quote]

Great talk.

Just wonderful. I listened to it while working so I missed any good facial expressions by Bam. [/quote]

I watched most of it , it appeared to me Bam gave his thought process consideration
[/quote]

As he should. The guy’s views are pretty spot on throughout and not really all that partisian or controversal.

56

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

So, you agree that 1 dollar is more valuable to a person with ten dollars than 1 dollar is to a person with a million?

All you have to do is keep following the logic :)[/quote]

Yes, but as Beans said that is not relevant to the discussion because we’re talking about proportionality.

57

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Simple but powerful speech Dr Carson delivers. Well worth the time. Watch it.

[/quote]

Great talk.

Just wonderful. I listened to it while working so I missed any good facial expressions by Bam. [/quote]

I watched most of it , it appeared to me Bam gave his thought process consideration
[/quote]

As he should. The guy’s views are pretty spot on throughout and not really all that partisian or controversal. [/quote]

My daughter posdted this on her face books , I thought the guy was intelligent and I agreed with him (mostly) She says he a is a tea party pony at present ? I will watch him .

58

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I thought the guy was intelligent and I agreed with him (mostly) She says he a is a tea party pony at present [/quote]

You better watch out man, don’t want to get caught breaking party lines and agreeing with a tea party guy… :wink:

(I have no idea if he is or isn’t a tea party guy.)

59

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I thought the guy was intelligent and I agreed with him (mostly) She says he a is a tea party pony at present [/quote]

You better watch out man, don’t want to get caught breaking party lines and agreeing with a tea party guy… :wink:

(I have no idea if he is or isn’t a tea party guy.)[/quote]

I don’t think most people are that far apart. I can see common thread between Occupy and Tea Baggers. I think dissatisfaction in Government runs deep in America

60

This is a point I could never get Zeb to understand I am an independent , If we are going to design programs for one side to win out over the other I will choose the middle to beat the rich . If we have fair policy I would choose that first