Let's talk taxes

[ecofarm]

liberal elites tend to have a fascination with street anarchists or thugs.

As a liberal, both economic and social, I'd like to note; it's true.

Dunno beyond that sentence but good start.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah, its a riot that happened in Chicago. I studied it during school. Basically a group of protestors got together to strike and the police went to break up the riot. Well one of the workers threw a bomb at the police and it killed 8 police men. The rest of the police men found and arrested some random people who had nothing to do with the affiar. And charged them for the bomb throwing and then killed them. That pretty much sums it up.

But basically Haymarket your beef is with the police not the rich. But I mean people like him would never be pleased unless there was anarchy in the streets.

Your "knowledge" of the Haymarket Affair is flawed at best, woefully ignorant at worst and irrelevant in fact.

There was no "riot" for the Chicago police to break up.

If you are interested in finding out the facts of what happened you may want to read DEATH IN THE HAYMARKET by James Green. It is a recent work published in 2006 and uses the last 120- years of research and scholarship to produce the best work on the subject written. The book has been highly praised by historians and experts in that field.

from the Amazon page

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
As Green thoroughly documents, the bloody Haymarket riot of May 4, 1886, changed the history of American labor and created a panic among Americans about (often foreign-born) "radicals and reformers" and union activists. The Haymarket demonstration, to protest police brutality during labor unrest in Chicago, remained peaceful until police moved in, whereupon a bomb was thrown by an individual never positively identified, killing seven policemen and wounding 60 others. Shortly after, labor leaders August Spies and Albert Parsons, along with six more alleged anarchists, stood convicted of murder on sparse evidence. Four of them went to the gallows in 1887; another committed suicide. The surviving three received pardons in 1893. The Knights of Labor, at that time America's largest and most energetic union, received the blame for the riot, despite a lack of conclusive evidence , and many Knights locals migrated to the less radical American Federation of Labor. Labor historian Green (Taking History to Heart) eloquently chronicles all this, producing what will surely be the definitive word on the Haymarket affair for this generation. Green is particularly strong in documenting the episode's long aftermath, especially the decades-long efforts of the white Parsons's black wife to exonerate her husband. B&w illus. (Mar. 7)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.


From Booklist
Green, an academic, offers a narrative history of Chicago's Haymarket bombing in 1886, the infamous trial that followed, and the hanging of subsequently determined innocent men. Chicago was then at the heart of the labor struggle for the eight-hour day, and we learn that "workers' struggles had often been met with shocking repression, and that when violence bred violence, when powerless laboring people struck back in anger, they often paid with their lives." The Haymarket episode became a seminal moment for the American labor movement, and Green takes us inside the personal, social, and cultural elements of this tragic event. Evaluation of Haymarket includes the contention that a conservative bias against radicals, labor organizers, immigrants, and minorities was fundamental to the conflict as well as the view that execution of the anarchists saved the country from anarchy and was a moral and political victory for law and order. The author notes that after Haymarket, social peace among the various classes in Chicago was impossible, and grudges continued for decades. Mary Whaley

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Your "knowledge" of the Haymarket Affair is flawed at best, woefully ignorant at worst and irrelevant in fact.

There was no "riot" for the Chicago police to break up.

If you are interested in finding out the facts of what happened you may want to read DEATH IN THE HAYMARKET by James Green. It is a recent work published in 2006 and uses the last 120- years of research and scholarship to produce the best work on the subject written. The book has been highly praised by historians and experts in that field.

from the Amazon page

You are not too bright. I have read that book and the Haymarket Affiar can also be referred to as Haymarket Riot. Its not important. The most important part is that you just proved you do not even understand or know your own name. So yeah lol at you.

 

[haymarket]

If you read it, you failed to understand what you read. The author clearly establishes that there was no "riot" until the police invaded the crowd and fighting broke out. The actual police reports used at the trial support and document this beyond any doubt. If you do not comprehend that basic fact of history, then it is not necessary to engage with you any further as it would be a complete waste of time.

 

[VanceMack]

If you read it, you failed to understand what you read. The author clearly establishes that there was no "riot" until the police invaded the crowd and fighting broke out. The actual police reports used at the trial support and document this beyond any doubt. If you do not comprehend that basic fact of history, then it is not necessary to engage with you any further as it would be a complete waste of time.

Recognizing that this is an argument between A and B and I should C my way clear of it, I cant help but point out that at least one of those 'peaceful' protestors was carrying a bomb...

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, its a riot that happened in Chicago. I studied it during school. Basically a group of protestors got together to strike and the police went to break up the riot. Well one of the workers threw a bomb at the police and it killed 8 police men. The rest of the police men found and arrested some random people who had nothing to do with the affiar. And charged them for the bomb throwing and then killed them. That pretty much sums it up.

But basically Haymarket your beef is with the police not the rich. But I mean people like him would never be pleased unless there was anarchy in the streets.

Actually...if there was "anarchy in the streets" most liberals wouldnt stand a chance...

 

[haymarket]

Recognizing that this is an argument between A and B and I should C my way clear of it, I cant help but point out that at least one of those 'peaceful' protestors was carrying a bomb...

Perhaps a fan of the second amendment? Perhaps his idea of 'arms' was different than yours?

Read the book.

 

[VanceMack]

Perhaps a fan of the second amendment? Perhaps his idea of 'arms' was different than yours?

Read the book.

Perhaps totally not the point? Dissemble much? Its kind of tough to make an idiotic argument that your mob members were just kindly peaceful folk while admitting one of them decided...hey...what the hell...lets bring a BOMB to the party just in case. I dont care WHAT the persons second amendment philosophy was...the asshole still brought and used a bomb. That sort of doesnt qualify as 'peaceful.'

 

[haymarket]

My reply to what you posted was intended to be less than serious since it is obvious that yours was far less than serious. The labor picnic and protest in Harmarket Square was completely peaceful and non violent until the police waded into the crowd with clubs attempting to break it up. The violence was initiated by the police and one lone individual responded. These facts are long ago established and are not in contention. The fact is that the police were the party who moved into the crowd.

Regardless, we are talking about a criminal action by one lone individual. That does not negate the thousands of people who were engaged in peaceful demonstration exercising their rights as Americans.

I thought libertarians were in favor of that sort of thing?

But please, read the book.

 

[Kushinator]

Value is not random.

Pay attention to the vocabulary. Valuation, i.e. the pricing mechanism, is based upon random economic and political developments. Wars, trade policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, earnings, innovative breakthroughs, etc..., can instantaneously change the market value for a particular asset. The same holds for speculation, which is known to drive asset prices well in excess of their fundamental valuations.

Minute by minute fluctuations are pretty much Brownian motion, but over the long term these things can be predicted, and some do it quite well.

You are describing speculation, albeit informed speculation. Think about Lehman and Enron; how can information asymmetries affect long term asset valuations?

 

[mikhail]

No, it's not. Raising taxes may not necessarily get you more money. The same is true for lowering taxes. However, you do know that lowering taxes always will result in more growth for the economy.

Well in the short term it will.Also why not just have 0 taxes through your ideas?

 

[phattonez]

Well in the short term it will.Also why not just have 0 taxes through your ideas?

Short term and long term, it makes no difference.

 

[phattonez]

Pay attention to the vocabulary. Valuation, i.e. the pricing mechanism, is based upon random economic and political developments. Wars, trade policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, earnings, innovative breakthroughs, etc..., can instantaneously change the market value for a particular asset. The same holds for speculation, which is known to drive asset prices well in excess of their fundamental valuations.

But it's not random. If the value that an individual places on something is not random, then the total value of an item is not random. There may be random variables that influence the value, but you can't ignore those parts that are not based on randomness. These can be predicted.

You are describing speculation, albeit informed speculation. Think about Lehman and Enron; how can information asymmetries affect long term asset valuations?

The latter is an example of fraud, the former a bust.