5 ms·

I thought this was a balanced and nuanced comment until you bring up "a slimy feeling" and "hired thugs", which is probably not conducive to clear and rational

I thought this was a balanced and nuanced comment until you bring up "a slimy feeling" and "hired thugs", which is probably not conducive to clear and rational discussion. That said, it's certainly possible to run an orderly taxation system with information that's publicly available - the more you require people to report their affairs to the authorities, the more chance of abuse you have. I'm personally of the belief that the sanest form of taxation is taxing assets held in a jurisdiction - then you're paying directly for what's protected. So tax property, and owned stocks and bonds perhaps. If you need someone to report all the money they have outside of your jurisdiction, everywhere, well I think that gets kind of scary. Anyways, good discussion - armed thugs doesn't make for smart conversation, but good analysis overall.

barrkel 16y ago
I do not want to be dishonest when I comment. A large portion of the motivation for me replying was the emotional distaste I got from reading your argument, and I didn't want to deny it as a bias by pretending to some kind of intellectual distance and objectivity.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Fair enough, but both sides can play the "armed thugs" card, and then we wind up in a "screw the man!!!! the government is just thugs with guns!" "no dude screw the corporations!!! the banks is just thugs with guns!!!" discussion... which is bad. You can characterize any political position you don't like with emotional language, but it makes it harder to get to truth. You did write some really good points, that's why I thought it was a shame that the emotional language comes in... it's possible to do without it. Most people feel emotionally about their politics, but emotional language rallies your side at the expense of alienating the other side, and then discussion breaks down.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    This subthread is unfortunately meta; I guess all I want to add is that I felt that your comment relied for much of its force on a rhetorical and psychological trick of associating the banking relationship with the relationship one might have with a doctor or one's spouse. I really do think banks gain a kind of veneer of respectability from their proximity to money, rather than an intrinsic worth in what they do. But scratch the surface, and atavistic greed oozes out.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      I'm actually enjoying the meta discussion, learning from it. It feels like the ol' days a little bit, when people had nuanced civil disagreements on here commonly. As for rhetoric, I didn't come up with the idea that your relationship with your banker should be private - that's actually how it worked in classical banking. Switzerland inherited it because they've had the longest continuous government in the world - it dates back to the Middle Ages. The idea today that your banker and you don't have a relationship like your lawyer and you... honestly, I think classical banking is far more of an honest profession than modern law, but I'm not a huge fan of modern banking either. Anyways, good discussing and best wishes.
      - mwsfc 16y ago
        This is why I like reading the comments. Nice discussion.
    - mediaman 16y ago
      I don't understand the revulsion against banking. I do understand resentment towards some of the financial engineering that occurred in the past fifteen years, especially in areas of exotic securitization in which systemic risks were made opaque. But that has very little to do with classical banking. To say they have little intrinsic worth is essentially to claim that the industry that governs the allocation of credit in our economy -- that is, the credit line that finances my business's inventory and receivables, the loan that finances my new production equipment, the reasonable mortgage extended so a homeowner can buy a house, along with a substantial downpayment -- is of little use. That's an absurd position, and I don't know how one can reasonably claim that such an important function in our economy is not a respectable profession. My own company, which employs over 100 people, would immediately shut down without bank financing. Are you confusing the practices of exotic finance, which arguably have a lesser or questionable value to society, with traditional banking?

barrkel 16y ago

I do not want to be dishonest when I comment. A large portion of the motivation for me replying was the emotional distaste I got from reading your argument, and I didn't want to deny it as a bias by pretending to some kind of intellectual distance and objectivity.

lionhearted 16y ago
Fair enough, but both sides can play the "armed thugs" card, and then we wind up in a "screw the man!!!! the government is just thugs with guns!" "no dude screw the corporations!!! the banks is just thugs with guns!!!" discussion... which is bad. You can characterize any political position you don't like with emotional language, but it makes it harder to get to truth. You did write some really good points, that's why I thought it was a shame that the emotional language comes in... it's possible to do without it. Most people feel emotionally about their politics, but emotional language rallies your side at the expense of alienating the other side, and then discussion breaks down.
- barrkel 16y ago
  This subthread is unfortunately meta; I guess all I want to add is that I felt that your comment relied for much of its force on a rhetorical and psychological trick of associating the banking relationship with the relationship one might have with a doctor or one's spouse. I really do think banks gain a kind of veneer of respectability from their proximity to money, rather than an intrinsic worth in what they do. But scratch the surface, and atavistic greed oozes out.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    I'm actually enjoying the meta discussion, learning from it. It feels like the ol' days a little bit, when people had nuanced civil disagreements on here commonly. As for rhetoric, I didn't come up with the idea that your relationship with your banker should be private - that's actually how it worked in classical banking. Switzerland inherited it because they've had the longest continuous government in the world - it dates back to the Middle Ages. The idea today that your banker and you don't have a relationship like your lawyer and you... honestly, I think classical banking is far more of an honest profession than modern law, but I'm not a huge fan of modern banking either. Anyways, good discussing and best wishes.
    - mwsfc 16y ago
      This is why I like reading the comments. Nice discussion.
  - mediaman 16y ago
    I don't understand the revulsion against banking. I do understand resentment towards some of the financial engineering that occurred in the past fifteen years, especially in areas of exotic securitization in which systemic risks were made opaque. But that has very little to do with classical banking. To say they have little intrinsic worth is essentially to claim that the industry that governs the allocation of credit in our economy -- that is, the credit line that finances my business's inventory and receivables, the loan that finances my new production equipment, the reasonable mortgage extended so a homeowner can buy a house, along with a substantial downpayment -- is of little use. That's an absurd position, and I don't know how one can reasonably claim that such an important function in our economy is not a respectable profession. My own company, which employs over 100 people, would immediately shut down without bank financing. Are you confusing the practices of exotic finance, which arguably have a lesser or questionable value to society, with traditional banking?