2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Loren Pechtel]

No,it's not. You are misinterpreting the argument from authority fallacy.

An argument from authority (or appeal to authority) is a claim where the opinion of an expert or authority figure is used as primary evidence. It becomes a logical fallacy when the cited source lacks expertise, is biased, or when the claim is contradicted by a broader consensus.

Broader consensus is that (almost) no country in the World considers unrealized increases of asset valuation as equivalent to "income".

Just because they don't declare it to be taxable does not mean they do not consider it to be income. It's either income, outgo, or stagnation. There are no other choices.

Or it's bookkeeping.

There is no scenario in which they could actually spend the money. Thus how can you truly say they have it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's the MAGA position.

No, it isn't.

The reality is that for the most part the demonstrators and the looters were different groups, the latter taking advantage of the distraction of the former.

That's bullshit, used to pretend that the George Floyd riots were peaceful.
In reality there is a big overlap with protests becoming more violent during the night.

And that's a rebuttal?

The looters came by night, using the protests as a distraction. The protesters were pointing them out, but the police didn't care.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have the incredibly naïve thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

You make electorates, districts based solely upon number of noses. Pick a number N and all districts need to be that size =/-%N.
The key is N is solely numeric. You do not concern yourself with what colour the noses are or how they voted large time. Just numeric.
It will not give you 'nice shaped' or equally sized districts but they will be geographically contiguous i.e. a continuous line can be drawn around the district, no gaps and no pieces elsewhere. The areas of the districts will vary according to population density but that does not matter. Number of noses, just number of noses.
Largest and smallest electorates in Australia based upon area

Yeah, I have suggested something like this.

1) Divide the state into a whole bunch of chunks. Things like every big street etc.

2) Draw districts made out of those chunks so as to minimize the total boundary length. State borders are considered to have zero length, as well as things like major rivers, impassible terrain etc. All districts must be within a defined percentage of equal.

When you say that "All districts must be within a defines percentage of equal" what is the criteria that needs to be equal? Area, population, ??
Because the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) enforces the principle of "one vote, one value" to ensure equal voting power, the total number of enrolled voters per electorate remains relatively uniform (averaging roughly 110,000 voters) despite the staggering differences in physical size.

Yeah, I mean population eligible to vote as equal.

Rules can't be changed for the next election, only for subsequent elections.

Hmmm

Can't choose the numbers to get the solution you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have the incredibly naïve thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

You make electorates, districts based solely upon number of noses. Pick a number N and all districts need to be that size =/-%N.
The key is N is solely numeric. You do not concern yourself with what colour the noses are or how they voted large time. Just numeric.
It will not give you 'nice shaped' or equally sized districts but they will be geographically contiguous i.e. a continuous line can be drawn around the district, no gaps and no pieces elsewhere. The areas of the districts will vary according to population density but that does not matter. Number of noses, just number of noses.

Yeah, I have suggested something like this.

1) Divide the state into a whole bunch of chunks. Things like every big street etc.

2) Draw districts made out of those chunks so as to minimize the total boundary length. State borders are considered to have zero length, as well as things like major rivers, impassible terrain etc. All districts must be within a defined percentage of equal.

Rules can't be changed for the next election, only for subsequent elections.

As you know I consider all this to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- the whole concept of geographic districts is fatally flawed and anachronistic as hell since it's a solution to 18th-century communication technology limitations that no longer exist.

But that said, if we're stuck with them, it used to be customary to draw boundaries that theoretically held together communities of interest to some degree, following city and county boundary lines and so forth. Perfect squares, minimal total boundary length and similar systems are completely unrelated to the geography of who has anything in common with whom. So if we've decided that doesn't matter, there's a better method than any of the proposals I've seen. It has the great merits that (1) its "defined percentage of equal" is 100% -- there's no arbitrary "close enough" number to leave some people's vote counting more than others'. (2) it's physically impossible to game it. And (3) it's trivial to compute so anybody with a database of where people live can verify for himself that it wasn't gamed. It works like this: (Step A) if there are P people and N seats, let X = P / N be the number of people in each district. (Step B) for each person {i}, count how many people S{i} live further south than person {i}. (Step C) let D{i} = floor(S{i} / X) be person {i}'s district number. Which is to say, every district boundary is a single east-west line running the whole width of the state.

At large amplifies political differences. The idea of geographically connected districts is electing someone who can at least voice the interests of the area. Your system is going to run into some problems here--you're going to slice this city into thin strips.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm pretty sure I've been pointing out how loaded progressivism is with religious thinking longer than Loren's been doing it; I've definitely been pointing out the irrationality of the "We are subsidizing any employer who pays employees so poorly that they must supplement their income by food stamps" argument a lot longer than verbiage-spewing AIs have been a thing. If you want to claim I cannot defend against it then it's kind of odd for you to quote my defense against it back to me. I've taken basic economics and the prof and textbook never made the claim progressives endlessly preach. And if the religion bit bugs you so much, how about I stop accusing you of religion and you stop accusing people of racism? Deal?

Objection. I have been objecting to faith-based reasoning. There are no gods, no prayers, just unquestionable holy writ. And when you speak blasphemy (anything that goes against the unquestionable holy writ) it gets shoehorned into the context of the holy writ and thus distorted. (For a completely non-religious example, look at all the names that got mangled by being forced into English. Or, even worse, being forced into Chinese--the Chinese have a set of syllables rather than a set of letter sounds.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Really? What was Elon Musk’s innovation?

Maybe you do not realize how big a deal this was in 2008. The EVs of that era tended to be ugly econoboxes that were significantly overpriced compared to what they were. For example, the 2009 Mitsubishi i-MiEV was >$40k for a subcompact car. Or else they were affordable but basically glorified golf carts like the G-Wiz with the 2008 model (2nd gen) having a 17 horsepower motor and maxing out at 50 mph.

The original Roadster showed that EVs can be sexy. And by competing in the higher-priced sports car market, the added cost of EV tech was not a significant portion of the cost, unlike with EVs offered until then.

And yes, he squandered a lot of cachet of the Tesla brand later with substandard quality, poorly thought out models like the Cybertruck and unrealistic promises of autonomous driving. But on the other hand, the Powerwall is a solid battery system for example. With SpaceX, the Falcon launch system is a cost-effective way to get into the orbit.

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

 

[thebeave]

Those who don't think the uber rich should pay their fair share of taxes, that they give enough already. Even though sometimes that enough is less than what a worker at a nursing home pays. Or effectively nothing.

We have already shown that you are mistaken in the notion that the "uber rich" pay "effectively nothing".

It’s already been discussed that some uber wealthy do not draw income but live off of loans borrowed against their assets, there for owing no income taxes. Musk in some years has drawn no income from his assets and therefore owed no personal income taxes. Warren Buffet famously remarked that his housekeeper paid more income taxes than he did.

Major error on Buffet: He said his housekeeper secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Not more tax!

FIFY

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Really? What was Elon Musk’s innovation?

Maybe you do not realize how big a deal this was in 2008. The EVs of that era tended to be ugly econoboxes that were significantly overpriced compared to what they were. For example, the 2009 Mitsubishi i-MiEV was >$40k for a subcompact car. Or else they were affordable but basically glorified golf carts like the G-Wiz with the 2008 model (2nd gen) having a 17 horsepower motor and maxing out at 50 mph.

The original Roadster showed that EVs can be sexy. And by competing in the higher-priced sports car market, the added cost of EV tech was not a significant portion of the cost, unlike with EVs offered until then.

And yes, he squandered a lot of cachet of the Tesla brand later with substandard quality, poorly thought out models like the Cybertruck and unrealistic promises of autonomous driving. But on the other hand, the Powerwall is a solid battery system for example. With SpaceX, the Falcon launch system is a cost-effective way to get into the orbit.

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

No. But he helped finance Tesla's development. Musk was better as a private equity fund than an engineer. He starts inserting himself where he doesn't belong, and you get the CyberTruck and landing on Mars in 2025.

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

You have any idea how much cash car companies burn through?

 

[jonatha]

But we have no reason to think they were borrowing

Why not? It's reported to be a widespread (and effective) practice.

I also wonder how much interest they're actually paying. The back might prefer Elon's IPO business to interest on a margin loan..

 

[Toni]

Those who don't think the uber rich should pay their fair share of taxes, that they give enough already. Even though sometimes that enough is less than what a worker at a nursing home pays. Or effectively nothing.

We have already shown that you are mistaken in the notion that the "uber rich" pay "effectively nothing".

It’s already been discussed that some uber wealthy do not draw income but live off of loans borrowed against their assets, there for owing no income taxes. Musk in some years has drawn no income from his assets and therefore owed no personal income taxes. Warren Buffet famously remarked that his housekeeper paid more income taxes than he did.

Major error on Buffet: He said his housekeeper paid a higher tax rate than he did. Not more tax!

Thank you for pointing out my inaccuracy but the point still stands. Why should a middle class person pay a higher rate ( real or effective) than a millionaire or a billionaire?

We have a progressive tax system precisely because those who earn more benefit more from society and should pay more for that benefit. And because they can.

 

[Toni]

Really? What was Elon Musk’s innovation?

Maybe you do not realize how big a deal this was in 2008. The EVs of that era tended to be ugly econoboxes that were significantly overpriced compared to what they were. For example, the 2009 Mitsubishi i-MiEV was >$40k for a subcompact car. Or else they were affordable but basically glorified golf carts like the G-Wiz with the 2008 model (2nd gen) having a 17 horsepower motor and maxing out at 50 mph.

The original Roadster showed that EVs can be sexy. And by competing in the higher-priced sports car market, the added cost of EV tech was not a significant portion of the cost, unlike with EVs offered until then.

And yes, he squandered a lot of cachet of the Tesla brand later with substandard quality, poorly thought out models like the Cybertruck and unrealistic promises of autonomous driving. But on the other hand, the Powerwall is a solid battery system for example. With SpaceX, the Falcon launch system is a cost-effective way to get into the orbit.

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

No. But he helped finance Tesla's development. Musk was better as a private equity fund than an engineer. He starts inserting himself where he doesn't belong, and you get the CyberTruck and landing on Mars in 2025.

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

You have any idea how much cash car companies burn through?

So long story short: Musk paid for innovation. He did not innovate himself, unless you wish to call his creation of DOGE an innovation. That little innovation has been extremely costly to taxpayers, without considering the theft of private data of every single taxpayer and citizen in the US.

They should all be in jail.

 

[Playball40]

Really? What was Elon Musk’s innovation?

Maybe you do not realize how big a deal this was in 2008. The EVs of that era tended to be ugly econoboxes that were significantly overpriced compared to what they were. For example, the 2009 Mitsubishi i-MiEV was >$40k for a subcompact car. Or else they were affordable but basically glorified golf carts like the G-Wiz with the 2008 model (2nd gen) having a 17 horsepower motor and maxing out at 50 mph.

The original Roadster showed that EVs can be sexy. And by competing in the higher-priced sports car market, the added cost of EV tech was not a significant portion of the cost, unlike with EVs offered until then.

And yes, he squandered a lot of cachet of the Tesla brand later with substandard quality, poorly thought out models like the Cybertruck and unrealistic promises of autonomous driving. But on the other hand, the Powerwall is a solid battery system for example. With SpaceX, the Falcon launch system is a cost-effective way to get into the orbit.

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

HA! As if he reads.

 

[Elixir]

No new billionaires were created because the money was left in corporations but used for personal purposes.

That is STILL the case. I’ve pointed it out as nauseum, yet somehow you missed it. The difference is that today, various tax loopholes and legalized evasions have allowed both private excesses to be charged to Companies, and private hoardes of cash to simultaneously accumulate in ways that a 90+% top marginal rate would inhibit (depending on where lines were drawn). The vehement extremes the radical rich right goes to in order to prevent that from happening, should be adequate proof of its effect if you were paying attention.

 

[Elixir]

Should they be the 91% or 100% that some are asking for? No.

Because you say so?
History disagrees with you.
1) a 100% top marginal rate has NEVER been imposed on anyone (in America) afaik.
2) the highest marginal rates ever, coincided with America’s most prosperous era ever.
So, simply put, YOU’RE WRONG, QED.
I look forward to your next attempt to disassociate prosperity with high top marginal tax rates.

 

[Elixir]

But we have no reason to think they were borrowing.

Other than that they say that’s what they do. Ask an honest billionaire like Warren Buffet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your lips to the progressivism god's ears. People do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders. Say it to yourself a hundred times, just to make sure you have it down. Then reason from it! Follow its implications to where they lead.

When we give someone with $1700 in wages another $300 in food stamps, we do it because he is our fellow man and we value him at at least $2000. From this it does not follow that his labor is also worth at least $2000. He himself can be worth more than his labor is worth, because he himself is more than his labor, because people do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders!

Your analysis is based on the assumption of a competitive labor market with fully informed economic agents (i.e. that workers are paid their contribution to production). That model is a valuable starting point to looking at labor markets, but the underlying assumptions make it an unrealistic depiction.

You are not refuting him one bit.

And note that "workers are paid their contribution to production" is yet another guise for the labor theory of value. In practice it's a dog-whistle for "more", as the analysis never captures all of what does not come from that worker, and in would never happen in a sane market as an employer who pays the worker the full value of their work gains nothing, why hire them?

 

[ZiprHead]

Really? What was Elon Musk’s innovation?

Maybe you do not realize how big a deal this was in 2008. The EVs of that era tended to be ugly econoboxes that were significantly overpriced compared to what they were. For example, the 2009 Mitsubishi i-MiEV was >$40k for a subcompact car. Or else they were affordable but basically glorified golf carts like the G-Wiz with the 2008 model (2nd gen) having a 17 horsepower motor and maxing out at 50 mph.

The original Roadster showed that EVs can be sexy. And by competing in the higher-priced sports car market, the added cost of EV tech was not a significant portion of the cost, unlike with EVs offered until then.

And yes, he squandered a lot of cachet of the Tesla brand later with substandard quality, poorly thought out models like the Cybertruck and unrealistic promises of autonomous driving. But on the other hand, the Powerwall is a solid battery system for example. With SpaceX, the Falcon launch system is a cost-effective way to get into the orbit.

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

No. But he helped finance Tesla's development. Musk was better as a private equity fund than an engineer. He starts inserting himself where he doesn't belong, and you get the CyberTruck and landing on Mars in 2025.

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

You have any idea how much cash car companies burn through?

That doesn't make Musk some sort of wunderkind. It just means he's rich and got a lot richer. It seems like it's pretty easy to get richer when you are already rich to start out. AAMOF, the only rich person I know of to almost lose it all is Trump. Lucky for him his dad bailed him out.

 

[laughing dog]

Your lips to the progressivism god's ears. People do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders. Say it to yourself a hundred times, just to make sure you have it down. Then reason from it! Follow its implications to where they lead.

When we give someone with $1700 in wages another $300 in food stamps, we do it because he is our fellow man and we value him at at least $2000. From this it does not follow that his labor is also worth at least $2000. He himself can be worth more than his labor is worth, because he himself is more than his labor, because people do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders!

Your analysis is based on the assumption of a competitive labor market with fully informed economic agents (i.e. that workers are paid their contribution to production). That model is a valuable starting point to looking at labor markets, but the underlying assumptions make it an unrealistic depiction.

You are not refuting him one bit.

Not to anyone remotely acquainted with basic economics.

And note that "workers are paid their contribution to production" is yet another guise for the labor theory of value. In practice it's a dog-whistle for "more", as the analysis never captures all of what does not come from that worker, and in would never happen in a sane market as an employer who pays the worker the full value of their work gains nothing, why hire them?

You are grossly mistaken. I was trying to avoid the jargon of economic theory (i.e. marginal revenue product). Since the rest of your response is based on a straw man, it can deservedly be ignored.