I like to ask neo-cons why they think we're fighting in Iraq. Most will answer that we're there to make the world a safer place, reduce the potential for terrorism in the US, bring democracy to the region, or some similar crap.
My response is something along the lines of:
Do you think that goal has been worth killing more than a million Iraqis? Doesn't that make us more like Saddam than some kind of saviour?
[[MORE]]
Some will dispute the number of deaths, but it's readily supported with a search on the web.
I also like to point out that the main people behind 9/11 were Saudis, not Iraqis -- so what have the Iraqis ever done to us, or threatened to do to us, that has warranted killing on such a large scale?
If they're open to a follow-up, I might add that I think one of the big reasons we're in both Iraq and Afghanistan is for control of the their oil fields and pipeline routes. I just plant the seed, and let them think about it. I try not to get into a big debate, because it almost always ends poorly.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Friday, 16 November 2007
US vs. New Zealand Tax Rates
Let's look at tax rates in the US vs. New Zealand, comparing apples to apples (highest tax bracket). Here are the US rates:
Income tax: 35%
Sales tax in California: 8.25%
State income tax: 9%
FICA: 6.2%
E-FICA: 6.2% (paid by your employer on your behalf)
Medicare: 1.45%
Total = 66.1% (59.9% not including E-FICA)
[[MORE]]
You could argue that the second / hidden 6.2% FICA shouldn't be included since it's paid by your employer, but that's money your employer could be paying you if they didn't have to pay the tax.
vs. 39.5% income + 12.5% VAT = 52% for NZ
Except in NZ, the taxes also cover basic medical care. Insurance costs of all kinds are a small fraction of the US costs, and true inflation rates are lower (inflation is another hidden tax). Property taxes are around 0.1%, there are no capital gains on the sale of your home, and there are no inheritance taxes. The government has actually been operating at a net surplus for the last few years.
Yes, both tax rates are very high. I think the income tax should be abolished in both countries. But until that happens, NZ doesn't look too bad.
Income tax: 35%
Sales tax in California: 8.25%
State income tax: 9%
FICA: 6.2%
E-FICA: 6.2% (paid by your employer on your behalf)
Medicare: 1.45%
Total = 66.1% (59.9% not including E-FICA)
[[MORE]]
You could argue that the second / hidden 6.2% FICA shouldn't be included since it's paid by your employer, but that's money your employer could be paying you if they didn't have to pay the tax.
vs. 39.5% income + 12.5% VAT = 52% for NZ
Except in NZ, the taxes also cover basic medical care. Insurance costs of all kinds are a small fraction of the US costs, and true inflation rates are lower (inflation is another hidden tax). Property taxes are around 0.1%, there are no capital gains on the sale of your home, and there are no inheritance taxes. The government has actually been operating at a net surplus for the last few years.
Yes, both tax rates are very high. I think the income tax should be abolished in both countries. But until that happens, NZ doesn't look too bad.
Monday, 12 November 2007
What to do about Iran?
OK, let's say Iran does develop a nuclear weapon.
Why should we attack and kill the Iranian people for doing something that other countries have done (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, etc)? If they do develop a weapon, I'm sure a large part of their motivation is self-defense (from, say, other countries that threaten to bomb them).
[[MORE]]
Let's say Iran think about using the bomb against a US target. It could be done with a missile of some kind, or indirectly through one of their terrorist organizations. The neo-con argument is the second one. Imagine yourself in Iran's position. You have one or a small number of nukes. Would you really trust some third-party organization to deliver it? Hell no. It could just as easily end up getting used against you. The other way, we're almost certainly going to know who did it. Even if Iran was confident they could get away with it, they could never be 100% sure. Since they know that if they were identified, the retaliation would be huge, I just can't see them ever using a bomb in any sort of first-strike capacity. The real value of a small number of nukes is either against non-nuclear countries or as a defensive / deterrant weapon.
In spite of that, let's say they do decide to set off a bomb in the US -- New York City. A big bomb might kill 1M people. Yes, that's terrible. But is it so terrible that it warrants killing hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Iranians before they ever do something? It's like killing your neighbor and his entire family because he bought a gun. Sure, he might use against you, but until he does, shouldn't he be considered a lawful gun owner?
Remember, they don't hate us for being rich and free. They hate us because we can't seem to keep our meddling fingers out of their lives!
The best -- and really only -- defense against terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise) is to mind our own fucking business. Talk, trade, travel, etc, and stop interfering.
BTW, I think the real reason the Bush Administration seems to want to bomb Iran has nothing to do with nukes. Instead, I think the real issues are oil and China -- but that's another post...
Why should we attack and kill the Iranian people for doing something that other countries have done (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, etc)? If they do develop a weapon, I'm sure a large part of their motivation is self-defense (from, say, other countries that threaten to bomb them).
[[MORE]]
Let's say Iran think about using the bomb against a US target. It could be done with a missile of some kind, or indirectly through one of their terrorist organizations. The neo-con argument is the second one. Imagine yourself in Iran's position. You have one or a small number of nukes. Would you really trust some third-party organization to deliver it? Hell no. It could just as easily end up getting used against you. The other way, we're almost certainly going to know who did it. Even if Iran was confident they could get away with it, they could never be 100% sure. Since they know that if they were identified, the retaliation would be huge, I just can't see them ever using a bomb in any sort of first-strike capacity. The real value of a small number of nukes is either against non-nuclear countries or as a defensive / deterrant weapon.
In spite of that, let's say they do decide to set off a bomb in the US -- New York City. A big bomb might kill 1M people. Yes, that's terrible. But is it so terrible that it warrants killing hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Iranians before they ever do something? It's like killing your neighbor and his entire family because he bought a gun. Sure, he might use against you, but until he does, shouldn't he be considered a lawful gun owner?
Remember, they don't hate us for being rich and free. They hate us because we can't seem to keep our meddling fingers out of their lives!
The best -- and really only -- defense against terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise) is to mind our own fucking business. Talk, trade, travel, etc, and stop interfering.
BTW, I think the real reason the Bush Administration seems to want to bomb Iran has nothing to do with nukes. Instead, I think the real issues are oil and China -- but that's another post...
Friday, 9 November 2007
New Zealand isn't (very) socialist
After moving to New Zealand in Dec 2006, something I hear a lot from my friends in the US is: "why would you move to New Zealand? They're socialist!" No, NZ isn't socialist. That's a common misconception in the US for some reason. They are really a mixed economy, much like the US, though arguably not nearly as bad.
[[MORE]]
They do have government subsidized medical care. They are a parliamentary democracy, and members of government have a reputation here of being extremely open and honest, with a very low level of corruption compared to other western countries, including the US. Unemployment and inflation are both low.
They do have high interest rates here (banks currently pay 7.6% for a savings account), partly caused by an attempt by their central bank to tone-down the recent housing boom. They have somewhat high income taxes (19.5% to 39.5%) and a 12.5% goods and services tax (GST), but very few hidden taxes (the US has a million of them), no state taxes, zero capital gains tax on the sale of your home, no inheritance taxes and very very low property taxes. They have a simple tax code: their income tax form is only about 4 pages long. The government raised something like NZ$4B more in taxes than it spent last year. They are very anti-Iraq war (there was a big flap here a few months ago about Air New Zealand being used by the Australians to fly soldiers to Iraq), anti-nuclear and pro-green (members of the Green party have even been able to get elected to parliament).
It's not perfect, of course. I would prefer a totally free-market society, but such a thing doesn't exist. I'm still an American at heart, though. If the politics in the US ever returns to something close to free-market capitalism, I will definitely consider moving back.
[[MORE]]
They do have government subsidized medical care. They are a parliamentary democracy, and members of government have a reputation here of being extremely open and honest, with a very low level of corruption compared to other western countries, including the US. Unemployment and inflation are both low.
They do have high interest rates here (banks currently pay 7.6% for a savings account), partly caused by an attempt by their central bank to tone-down the recent housing boom. They have somewhat high income taxes (19.5% to 39.5%) and a 12.5% goods and services tax (GST), but very few hidden taxes (the US has a million of them), no state taxes, zero capital gains tax on the sale of your home, no inheritance taxes and very very low property taxes. They have a simple tax code: their income tax form is only about 4 pages long. The government raised something like NZ$4B more in taxes than it spent last year. They are very anti-Iraq war (there was a big flap here a few months ago about Air New Zealand being used by the Australians to fly soldiers to Iraq), anti-nuclear and pro-green (members of the Green party have even been able to get elected to parliament).
It's not perfect, of course. I would prefer a totally free-market society, but such a thing doesn't exist. I'm still an American at heart, though. If the politics in the US ever returns to something close to free-market capitalism, I will definitely consider moving back.
Distortions in China
China has a widely-quoted 10%+ annual growth rate, and a weak currency. Lots of exports. What's not so widely reported is that they also have something like a 40% default rate on loans -- it's all a house of cards. Growth is easy when borrowing is cheap and easy, but they're suffering now because of the increasing prices of imports used for raw materials.
[[MORE]]
A weaker currency increases exports. Temporarily. China keeps their currency suppressed because they need the inflow of cash to keep their banking system from collapsing (due to the 40% loan default rate). They are in a deep hole that's going to be very difficult to climb out of.
China's artificially weak currency is a big issue. The reason the Chinese are being pressured to float their currency is because its artificial weakness substantially distorts the market, and causes people to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make.
Even today, it's still considered a smart business move to close down US-based manufacturing and move it to China. If people really understood how the economic situation is badly distorted and how fragile the Chinese banking system is, they would definitely think twice (which is why the banking aspect is close to being a Chinese state secret).
The press seem to be focused on the problems from the short-term perspective of US businesses, which is why they emphasize prices. Long-term, if the US wants to "win" against Chinese imports, one could argue that we should let them continue to abuse themselves. The problem is that they are also abusing the rest of us in the process.
Of course the Chinese aren't the only ones playing the distortion game. For example the US government distorts many widely-published statistics that are relied on by many to guide investments, timing, etc -- things like the CPI, GDP, unemployment (did you know that real unemployment in the US is around 12%, real inflation is around 10% and that we are already in a recession?).
[[MORE]]
A weaker currency increases exports. Temporarily. China keeps their currency suppressed because they need the inflow of cash to keep their banking system from collapsing (due to the 40% loan default rate). They are in a deep hole that's going to be very difficult to climb out of.
China's artificially weak currency is a big issue. The reason the Chinese are being pressured to float their currency is because its artificial weakness substantially distorts the market, and causes people to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make.
Even today, it's still considered a smart business move to close down US-based manufacturing and move it to China. If people really understood how the economic situation is badly distorted and how fragile the Chinese banking system is, they would definitely think twice (which is why the banking aspect is close to being a Chinese state secret).
The press seem to be focused on the problems from the short-term perspective of US businesses, which is why they emphasize prices. Long-term, if the US wants to "win" against Chinese imports, one could argue that we should let them continue to abuse themselves. The problem is that they are also abusing the rest of us in the process.
Of course the Chinese aren't the only ones playing the distortion game. For example the US government distorts many widely-published statistics that are relied on by many to guide investments, timing, etc -- things like the CPI, GDP, unemployment (did you know that real unemployment in the US is around 12%, real inflation is around 10% and that we are already in a recession?).
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Distortions in the teaching of US History
Most of what you learned in HS history is either useless (out of context names and dates), a distortion, or an outright lie. HS American history is supposed to make students proud of their country, but tries to do so in a completely backwards way. None of the bad things, struggles or controversies are included. It's really pathetic.
[[MORE]]
The list of disortions and lies is very long, but just for example, did you know:
Similarly, a lot of "common knowledge" about the Federal Reserve is based on historical inaccuracies. The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel. They are not the "protectors of the public" that they make themselves out to be. In reality, they are the protectors of the big banks. This isn't "conspiracy". This fact can be easily supported with a long list of historical references. And of course that's only the tip of the iceberg...
[[MORE]]
The list of disortions and lies is very long, but just for example, did you know:
- Columbus and most of the world in 1492 knew the world was round.
- People from Africa and other parts of Europe came to North America before Columbus.
- Columbus was responsible for plundering Haiti, including the death or enslavement of hundreds of thousands of natives.
- The population of the Americas may have been around 100 million before European settlers arrived in the early 1600s, compared to 70 million in Europe.
- As many as 96% of American natives were killed by a massive pandemic brought from Europe.
- Residents of Europe in the early 1600s rarely bathed because they thought it was unhealthy, but native Americans were very clean.
- Thanksgiving, as celebrated by many Americans, is a myth -- a religous ritual. Almost nothing in the myth happened as it is presented in history books.
- Hitler was elected to office by popular vote.
Similarly, a lot of "common knowledge" about the Federal Reserve is based on historical inaccuracies. The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel. They are not the "protectors of the public" that they make themselves out to be. In reality, they are the protectors of the big banks. This isn't "conspiracy". This fact can be easily supported with a long list of historical references. And of course that's only the tip of the iceberg...
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Guy Fawkes Day
Funny how the American press never seems to acknowledge that Guy Fawkes Day is actually celebrated every year in the UK and related countries like NZ, including fireworks displays, etc.
It seems to always be described from the terrorist side, where in the real event Guy Fawkes was captured before he did any harm -- the celebration is about successfully stopping terrorism, not starting it.
It seems to always be described from the terrorist side, where in the real event Guy Fawkes was captured before he did any harm -- the celebration is about successfully stopping terrorism, not starting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)