Author Topic: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?  (Read 27308 times)

Buffalo Chip

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #200 on: May 30, 2019, 06:26:20 PM »
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, weíre all hypocrites in some way.

This is more true than most people realize. In fact, with certain very defensible assumptions - this is a mathematical truth!!

If we assume:
1. Ideology = a "Formal System", as per Modern Algebra and Computer Science.
2. Ideology is defined by a set of assumptions (axioms as per CS/Modern Algebra) and rules of inferences.

Then - per Godel's Incompleteness theorem (super simplified) - that system is always incomplete, in that it can never solve all questions/problems that cn be posed within it!!

The theorem sounds complicated, but it's proof is so simple it was a part of a 2XX math course I took in undergrad. The proof usually involves using a mathematical technique known as diagonalization.

Let this sync in a bit!! No ideology, assuming it is codified as a set of assumptions and rules that are consistent etc.etc, can ever answer all problems you can throw at it!!

I found this mathematical theorem to be one of the most profound ever I've encountered!!

While that may be mathematically correct, hereís the rub: youíll never get folks to agree that their faith doesnít explain pretty much everything. And Iím as guilty as the next guy; Iím unabashedly religious. Iím just not a devotee of the Church of Elephants and Donkeys.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #201 on: May 30, 2019, 06:34:22 PM »
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does.  The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc.  Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations.  Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
Mustachians wouldn't need to travel more than average; they would need to care about the environment more than average, which you stated above was a tenet of mustachinism - 'environmentalism/urban planning'. Since at almost any level air travel is incredibly damaging to the environment and almost exclusively a luxury that is unneeded for quality of life, anyone who claims to honestly care about the environment while simultaneously utilizing air travel could be considered to be performing actions inconsistent with their stated views, especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary. Slow travelling is just as damaging, if one takes a plane to get to where they are slow travelling.

I haven't flown anywhere in years, and it was for work the last that I did, but I've seen quite a few people here bragging about how many places they've flown to for vacations/trips.  So, I totally expected the responses from others rationalizing why it's ok for them to travel by plane.  They did not disappoint.  I'm planning a bicycle trip when I FIRE.  Let's save the environment.

ctuser1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #202 on: May 30, 2019, 07:28:21 PM »
" If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". "

I agree with the above, but it doesn't follow that progressive taxation is necessarily required for this. Imagine a society costs $100 to run and there are 10 people. One way to distribute the maintenance costs is just to make everyone pay $10. Now this would never work in the real world because one person earns $50 and the others earn $3 so can't afford the $10 outlay. But my point is that it is quite possible to argue that maintenance costs ought not to be progressively levied. We don't make the winning team or winning athlete pay a greater entrance fee or stadium fee than the losers, do we?

If a successful person grew up in the same school district and same neighbourhood as an unsuccessful person why should the former pay more just because she grabbed the opportunity and the latter didn't?

The problem might be definitions!

How do you define "progressive" taxation - that higher earners should pay higher nominal value, or that higher earners should pay higher rate?

What about the concept that:
1. If you pay $X as taxes, you forfeit a marginal utility of some amount Y. This is the opportunity cost of the marginal utility you *could* have derived from the $X had you not paid it as taxes.
2. Everyone should pay an amount such that the marginal utility forfeited by those taxes are equal. i.e. everyone forfeits a marginal utility equal to Y. Of course, "forfeited marginal utility" of $1 is different for a homeless person than it is for the Mercers and Murdochs and such!!

Is the above fair?

There are volumes of academic research on this topic of fair taxation. If you use the assumptions above, the "fair" highest tax rate would be somewhere around where they used to be in US in the 50's and 60's.

There is a reason society was so much fairer back then.

[And no, economic windfall from the intact manufacturing infrastructure in the US post WW2 was not the reason. Digital/internet revolution produced higher total wealth in the last 40 years. US has not used that windfall as efficiently as the post-WW2 manufacturing windfall due to the asymmetric polarization of a certain political ideology that led to the tax system to veer faaaaaaaar away from the fair "forfeited marginal utility taxation".].


Wrenchturner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #203 on: May 30, 2019, 07:35:43 PM »
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does.  The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc.  Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations.  Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
Mustachians wouldn't need to travel more than average; they would need to care about the environment more than average, which you stated above was a tenet of mustachinism - 'environmentalism/urban planning'. Since at almost any level air travel is incredibly damaging to the environment and almost exclusively a luxury that is unneeded for quality of life, anyone who claims to honestly care about the environment while simultaneously utilizing air travel could be considered to be performing actions inconsistent with their stated views, especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary. Slow travelling is just as damaging, if one takes a plane to get to where they are slow travelling.

I haven't flown anywhere in years, and it was for work the last that I did, but I've seen quite a few people here bragging about how many places they've flown to for vacations/trips.  So, I totally expected the responses from others rationalizing why it's ok for them to travel by plane.  They did not disappoint.  I'm planning a bicycle trip when I FIRE.  Let's save the environment.

How about hitch hiking?  Sailing?

Bloop Bloop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 961
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #204 on: May 30, 2019, 07:40:48 PM »
" If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". "

I agree with the above, but it doesn't follow that progressive taxation is necessarily required for this. Imagine a society costs $100 to run and there are 10 people. One way to distribute the maintenance costs is just to make everyone pay $10. Now this would never work in the real world because one person earns $50 and the others earn $3 so can't afford the $10 outlay. But my point is that it is quite possible to argue that maintenance costs ought not to be progressively levied. We don't make the winning team or winning athlete pay a greater entrance fee or stadium fee than the losers, do we?

If a successful person grew up in the same school district and same neighbourhood as an unsuccessful person why should the former pay more just because she grabbed the opportunity and the latter didn't?

The problem might be definitions!

How do you define "progressive" taxation - that higher earners should pay higher nominal value, or that higher earners should pay higher rate?

What about the concept that:
1. If you pay $X as taxes, you forfeit a marginal utility of some amount Y. This is the opportunity cost of the marginal utility you *could* have derived from the $X had you not paid it as taxes.
2. Everyone should pay an amount such that the marginal utility forfeited by those taxes are equal. i.e. everyone forfeits a marginal utility equal to Y. Of course, "forfeited marginal utility" of $1 is different for a homeless person than it is for the Mercers and Murdochs and such!!

Is the above fair?

There are volumes of academic research on this topic of fair taxation. If you use the assumptions above, the "fair" highest tax rate would be somewhere around where they used to be in US in the 50's and 60's.

There is a reason society was so much fairer back then.

[And no, economic windfall from the intact manufacturing infrastructure in the US post WW2 was not the reason. Digital/internet revolution produced higher total wealth in the last 40 years. US has not used that windfall as efficiently as the post-WW2 manufacturing windfall due to the asymmetric polarization of a certain political ideology that led to the tax system to veer faaaaaaaar away from the fair "forfeited marginal utility taxation".].

You've introduced a different aspect to the argument. It seems you're saying that a 'maintenance cost' should be expressed not as a nominal figure but as a function of marginal utility.

I think your argument is sound. I don't agree with the premise, simply because I'm not a utilitarian, and I think arguments based on marginal utility depend on utilitarianism.

I'm not completely against the idea. I believe in mildly progressive taxes. By progressive I refer to proportion, not absolute figures.

"Fairness" also has many definitions. Imagine you have a track and field event dominated by a couple of entrants who have genetic or environmental gifts that the others lack. Some people would say it's only fair to handicap those two. Some people would say it's fair that those couple of entrants win all the races (presuming they run well and in fact beat the other contestants). Both definitions of 'fairness' are sound. Some people prefer one definition and some the other.

Buffalo Chip

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #205 on: May 30, 2019, 07:41:20 PM »
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, weíre all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.

As to what is truly ĒMustachianĒ about these political issues, I guess Iím looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.

The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you canít make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.

Since you brought it up, letís talk about those apathetic masses who donít dutifully show up to vote. We tend to dismiss them as ignorant or somehow morally deficient. But how about using economics to explain their behavior? Most of us are familiar with the idea of opportunity costs. I would argue that whatís happening here is that nonvoters are doing a sort of informal opportunity cost analysis and deciding that the time and resources spent educating themselves and voting are better spent elsewhere.

So, is it worth spending several hours of your time when the alternative is say more time spent with family or even working? Would you you trade 4 or 6 or 8 hours of your time to have a very small chance of being the one vote that decides a tied election? If so, you definitely should participate because itís valuable to you. Other people see it differently.

ctuser1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #206 on: May 30, 2019, 08:08:39 PM »
You've introduced a different aspect to the argument. It seems you're saying that a 'maintenance cost' should be expressed not as a nominal figure but as a function of marginal utility.

...I believe in mildly progressive taxes. By progressive I refer to proportion, not absolute figures.

"Fairness" also has many definitions...

Should tax rates be defined by "belief"? or Peer Reviewed work?

There are tomes of peer reviewed work I can google up that follows the logic pattern I have tried to outline (to the best of my understanding). Peter Diamond is an economist who has done a bunch of work on this topic.

Can you please point out any fair tax theory research that is *not* utilitarian? What are it's conclusions? Do they call for the 70-80% top marginal tax rates that utilitarian assumptions and research call for?

Note: I've already looked up Supply Side "economics". It is not a field of serious Economic research. No serious peer reviewed journal would publish on this field because it is hocus-pocus most probably paid for by self-serving billionaires for obvious self interest.

Bloop Bloop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 961
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #207 on: May 30, 2019, 08:18:01 PM »
Mate, I've said your argument is sound. That doesn't mean that one has to accept its utilitarian framework. All peer-reviewed work can do is to establish that in a utilitarian economy, moderately progressive tax rates are beneficial. I don't even deny that. But I'm not bound to accept your ethical philosophy, and frankly a lot of western countries are not particularly progressive, so it seems a lot of others are in the same boat.

Again, your definition of "fairness" seems to be a utilitarian one, or maybe a Kantian one. That's fine. I don't accept that as my definition of fairness. I've used the sporting analogy in my previous post to highlight where we offer.

It's disappointing that I can reply so neutrally to your views, which differ from mine, yet you call a whole field of economics "not serious economic research", as if anything that differs from your basic premises can't possibly be "serious". It must be "hocus-pocus" and "self-serving". It's only hocus-pocus if you start and end with the notion that utilitarianism is the only valid value system.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 08:19:36 PM by Bloop Bloop »

ctuser1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #208 on: May 30, 2019, 09:33:45 PM »
Mate, I've said your argument is sound. That doesn't mean that one has to accept its utilitarian framework. All peer-reviewed work can do is to establish that in a utilitarian economy, moderately progressive tax rates are beneficial. I don't even deny that. But I'm not bound to accept your ethical philosophy, and frankly a lot of western countries are not particularly progressive, so it seems a lot of others are in the same boat.

Again, your definition of "fairness" seems to be a utilitarian one, or maybe a Kantian one. That's fine. I don't accept that as my definition of fairness. I've used the sporting analogy in my previous post to highlight where we offer.
This part is absolutely fair and I can't contradict anything here.

It's disappointing that I can reply so neutrally to your views, which differ from mine, yet you call a whole field of economics "not serious economic research", as if anything that differs from your basic premises can't possibly be "serious". It must be "hocus-pocus" and "self-serving". It's only hocus-pocus if you start and end with the notion that utilitarianism is the only valid value system.

This I would contest.

Look at Arthur Laffer's wiki page. Note that he published slew of peer-reviewed research at the beginning of his career. Laffer Curve itself was a very notable economic concept, and very relevant when tax rates was upward of 70%.

It is reasonable to suggest that at certain tax rates, total receipt would go down!!

Note however, that there is almost no peer-reviewed economics research paper since 1992. Since then, he has published nothing that went through the scrutiny of serious peer-review. He was one of the primary advisers behind the Kansas debacle with their extreme tax cuts. And yet, his opinion - which is published widely by a certain political party, just no longer in peer reviewed research journals - is stridently absolutist. Taxation is evil! Always! At all levels!

Publication of the Laffer Curve was proper economics. The current "taxation is evil" is not. It is political demagogy. Unfortunately, this is what goes on in the name of "supply side economics" now-a-days!!

When I call supply side "economics" a "hocus pocus" - I refer to the current political activities by Arthur Laffer, and think tanks ideologically aligned with him, like Cato or Heritage etc. They are doing politics, not economics, and masquerading it as Economics.

This is an unfortunate state of affairs!! Proper research from all point of view adds a lot of value. Researchers following "Supply Side" doctrine honestly reviewing what Arthur Laffer did wrong in Kansas, as well as reviewing what went wrong in Connecticut where tax rate increase on the wealthy decreased tax receipt from them (thereby supporting Laffer Curve) would definitely add value, if anybody was doing it.

Unfortunately, nobody is doing it!!

By calling current - political - activities of supply side advocates "hocus pocus" and "not serious economics" I did not mean to question the legitimate work done in this field during the 70s and 80s. Neither was it meant to attack your point of view.

Bloop Bloop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 961
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #209 on: May 30, 2019, 10:29:03 PM »
Thanks for your response. I understand you were never seeking to attack my point of view, but just the point of view of the "hocus pocus" economists or people propagating that line of thought.

What I would say is this - some research is undoubtedly tainted by vested interests, though I suspect this happens on all parts of the spectrum - maybe more in the conservative arena since there's more corporate backing there.

Stepping away from that, and from naked politics, there's an argument that the ends don't necessarily justify the means, when it comes to taxation. It's a counter-utilitarian argument. For example, if you pointed me to research that shows that a 50% top tax rate achieves the most in terms of overall growth or redistribution, I still wouldn't support it, because I don't believe that pure growth or redistribution (or a combination of both) is what we should be aiming for. It comes down to one's value hierarchy.

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #210 on: May 31, 2019, 05:35:38 AM »
I always want to see a breakdown of voting by individuals in these states.  Like how do those who received benefits vote vs those who don't.

Isn't that a red herring?

For the purpose of argument, let's assume that the welfare recipient's vote "liberal". This is likely true for states like Alabama where that population is mostly "minority", but likely not true for Appalachia regions - i.e. a mixed result if any. It's based on anecdotes, I have no data on this and would stand corrected if anyone has any better data.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume 100% of the welfare recipients in these "republican states" vote democrat.

Do you think that the administration - mostly right wing - and the majority population in these states - again mostly right wing - for the past few decades, and their Jim Crow policies have some blame for failing to develop their economy over the decades such that they have to depend on handouts from the "northern" states?

Rhetorical question - do "state rights" apply in reverse? Are there any "state responsibilities" also? Or are these concepts and arguments useful only where they are convenient?

Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.

I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.

This is a good point to ponder.
Do you know of any good environment friendly way to invest?

I just joined the forum (mostly for reading) a few days ago and can stake no "ownership" of it's philosophy or message. But I doubt anyone is making any absolute claims about zero carbon footprint. Only the Sith deal in absolutes!!

I'm sure there are some "environmentally friendly" mutual funds which are comparatively better than, say, an S&P 500 index fund.  Returns would likely be lower and fees higher.  There are probably some opportunities in local real estate but this is obviously much more hands-on.

Folks tend to focus on the oil companies when I point this hypocrisy out but if you really start thinking about the products on the shelves of every Walmart, Home Depot, etc. and the impact of those products (and their packaging) on the environment it is mind boggling.  We are all condoning this with our investment dollars.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #211 on: May 31, 2019, 01:36:08 PM »
I wouldn't say that the conversation has been disrespectful (but I am no moderator). And I do think someone should start a thread asking whether right wing MMMers are hypocrites (not idiots). Just some thoughts on the flip side of the OP's question. And since the OP used Trump as the anti-thesis of the left we can use him and the poster child of the right - with similar accuracy:
-Right wing is against big government but your Mustachian lifestyle relies on all sorts of government programs: roads, the existence of qualified retirement plans, social security, obamacare, etc
-Right wing is against high taxes but again you benefit from all those government programs
-Right wing is against immigration but how many of you are immigrants or want to take advantage of other county's residency policies (ex pats)
-Right wing bans travel from certain countries, but you travel
-Right wing supports conservative christian values, but how many of you tithe (some, but not all)
-etc

The GOP SAYS alot about their values but their actions frequently demonstrate the opposite.

EricL

  • Guest
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #212 on: May 31, 2019, 06:37:09 PM »
From the perspective of a moderate liberal:

1. Almost all tax laws have deliberate rules that allow some people to pay less taxes and other people to pay more.  Actual loopholes are oversights in the law that allow people to dodge taxes, violating the intent of the nation's tax laws.  So married people get a tax break.  I don't care for it as a single guy, but I understand.  When deployed with the Army I got tax breaks that similarly rankled other people.  This year the my federal and state taxes HAMMERED me.  While I pissed and moaned about it, I paid in full.  It is what it is.  When it comes to tax breaks, MMM is all about making sure you know about them so you can use them.  He, and no other FIRE guru I'm aware of, recommend things like off shore banks or tax shelters.  Trump can't do anything without the liberal media crapping all over him.  But in the liberal media's defense, the man can't tweet a thing without lying or sounding like the asshole he is.

2. I do want to travel the world.  But to some degree I already have.  I don't own a car and don't intend to go everywhere so the travel I do will be offset somewhat.  BTW, not all Mustachians love travel.  We've had at least 2 threads on the forum filled with people that HATE travel and just want to hang around their house and do projects/hobbies/read/watch TV.

3. I'm gonna address the crossed out bit.  Even though Mustachians intend to drop out of the workforce, it doesn't mean we're moving to a cave in Tibet and the world can go fuck itself.  Those that want social justice do so because they believe it's good for society as a whole and because they are or were victimized by toxic norms.  Is there a certain busybody element to it?  Yes.  Are there bits of it that I personally disagree with?  Yes.  But there's nothing hypocritical about it. 

4. Healthcare is similar to taxes.  There are ways to understand the system and use it properly.  Unlike taxes, the default for the rich is just to pay the outrageous costs.  So a little knowledge for the not rich goes a long way.  Nor does a Mustachian using that knowledge take away from health care for other people.

What might be a bit of legit hypocrisy for far left Mustachians is the means by which we usually achieve FIRE: Investing and/or Real Estate.  Both are solidly capitalist ventures with potential moral/ethical downsides.  Investing, my preferred method, has a tendency to push publicly owned companies to do unethical things to promote profits to mollify investors.  To be sure, not all companies need to or will.  But plenty do - abusing workers, producing inferior, even unsafe products, ruining the environment etc.  Owning Index Funds which spread investments across a spectrum of companies virtually guarantees a Mustachian has some corp run by a sociopath in her portfolio.  Real Estate is less and more susceptible to this because typically a Mustachian owns rental properties.  The up side is that they get to determine what ethical decisions go into their ownership.  The downside is if they do something fucked up it's not some corporate board but them personally.  They are literally THE MAN or THE WOMAN.

The only real hazard for leftist to far left Mustachian is this:  If we ever do have a hard core socialist or even communist society it will likely decide FIRE money and unused work time not devoted to sustaining the new socialist economy is a kind of theft.  And FIRE'd people must atone with extra taxes and going back to work.  But that's a highly unlikely scenario.  Slightly more likely than a Zombie Apocalypse but less likely than the New York Times endorsing Trump's re-election.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3403
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #213 on: June 01, 2019, 08:53:33 AM »
I agree that is one way that liberals can be hypocritical, is by participating in the stock market, where you don't have control over how ethically the corporations that you are investing in, operate. For example people who are pro environmnent if they invest in the S & P 500 I'm sure are investing in fossil fuel companies as well as other companies that are undermining the environment. I don't see any easy way to avoid this.

Hargrove

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #214 on: June 01, 2019, 09:52:24 AM »
https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/esg/

See also VESGX (starts rolling June 5)

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1907
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #215 on: June 01, 2019, 12:37:34 PM »
I agree that is one way that liberals can be hypocritical, is by participating in the stock market, where you don't have control over how ethically the corporations that you are investing in, operate. For example people who are pro environmnent if they invest in the S & P 500 I'm sure are investing in fossil fuel companies as well as other companies that are undermining the environment. I don't see any easy way to avoid this.

Here's how I rationalize it  :)   I'm a consumer of fossil fuels as well.   I'm at the root of the problem, not the companies who are supplying the consumer demand.   So I try to limit my own fossil fuel consumption, and support public policies that aim to control greenhouse gases.   

Additionally (I realize some people will disagree will disagree with this), strictly speaking when you invest in a company by buying stock in a mutual fund, you technically aren't investing, you are saving.   The money doesn't go to the company, it goes to the previous shareholder.  The only exceptions are if you bought stock in a IPO or secondary offering. 

Some say that the secondary market is what gives the stock its value, and so you actually are investing in the company.   But that's not strictly true either.  Privately held companies commonly have stock that cannot be traded.  And for that matter, stocks existed before stock markets.  You don't need a public market for stocks to have value, in other words. 

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #216 on: June 01, 2019, 02:17:00 PM »
Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?

No.  Not at all.

DadJokes

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #217 on: June 02, 2019, 01:52:37 PM »
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, weíre all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.

As to what is truly ĒMustachianĒ about these political issues, I guess Iím looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.

The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you canít make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.

I don't think spending a few hours every few years voting is a problem. I certainly question those that seem to dedicate every moment of their lives to politics and want to inject politics into everything. There was a thread a few days ago where people were discussing how to move forward with a girlfriend that handles money poorly, and someone decided to make the conversation about the president. If you can't have a normal conversation without making it about politics, you have a problem.

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5622
  • Age: 1
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #218 on: June 02, 2019, 02:32:18 PM »
El oh el

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4414
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #219 on: June 02, 2019, 02:56:25 PM »
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, weíre all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.

As to what is truly ĒMustachianĒ about these political issues, I guess Iím looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.

The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you canít make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.

I don't think spending a few hours every few years voting is a problem. I certainly question those that seem to dedicate every moment of their lives to politics and want to inject politics into everything. There was a thread a few days ago where people were discussing how to move forward with a girlfriend that handles money poorly, and someone decided to make the conversation about the president. If you can't have a normal conversation without making it about politics, you have a problem.

Lol.

That was me.

And I wasnít making the conversation about politics. I was commenting on another posterís (in my mind) somewhat questionable remarks about ďhigh qualityĒ people (implying, I believe, that the OPís girlfriend was not one) and pointing out that two other people I could think of use the same phrase about people in the same condescending tone óone of whom is Donald Trump.

Iím not sure thatís even injecting politics into the conversation. Itís citing an example of a superlatively crap human being who uses a kind of crappy expression to classify other people as high or low quality ó and saying itís a superlatively crap thing to do.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #220 on: June 02, 2019, 03:03:04 PM »

lol  I would have guessed it was one of our other members, who likes to go off on Trump tirades, but I won't mention names.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #221 on: June 04, 2019, 10:50:51 AM »

Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.

I hope I got the quoting right. Anyhow interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor

This is the lady Reagan titled a "Welfare Queen". She was a standout case I think.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3403
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #222 on: June 04, 2019, 11:05:31 AM »

Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.

I hope I got the quoting right. Anyhow interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor

This is the lady Reagan titled a "Welfare Queen". She was a standout case I think.
wow! I somehow missed this. Abducting kids and even murder. Standout case indeed.

A Fella from Stella

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
Re: Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
« Reply #223 on: August 22, 2019, 10:33:10 AM »
Since mustachianism is new, it's progressive, by definition, which maybe makes us the most leftwing.