Would you own Leica stock?

Randy, don't bother with him. This is not the place for this kind of discussion. Let him spew his crap by himself if he wants.

I will live in fear, then, of the day when we are in "the place" for this kind of discussion. I have no doubt you would be a fearsome debater -- in the right place, of course.

Why, Gerald? Are you trying to give away "Ein Stuck" (damn- where's that umlaut)? I'll take it off your hands, but only because I like you ;)

B.B.:

 

I don't think your range of personal experience yields enough data to gauge the effects of AFDC. Why is it that neighborhoods with a high percentage of single mothers are the highest in crime? Why is it that men in such neighborhoods make babies, brag about them on street corners, and leave the support of their offspring to the rest of us? Why is it that school principals report the worst behavior coming from fatherless boys? AFDC to non-widows rewards irresponsibility; that's why more and more people will grab for it. Make babies, collect the money, and neglect the kids that were only a means to an end. And that sets more and more feral, fatherless boys on the streets and disconnects more and more of their fathers from a stake in the future and a desire for social order. This produces the crime that makes the cost of AFDC much greater than its cash expenditure. If you want a full discussion of this, and some of the numbers you want, read George Gilder's "Men, Women, and Marriage." This book was suppressed by the leftist reviewers and book distributors--and very nearly went unpublished despite Mr. Gilder's established reputation as a writer. You will profit from it mightily.

<<so many opinions expressed as fact>>

 

B.B., go over that post again that you describe as above. Show me one opinion that is expressed as a fact.

You have to be kidding me? This is grade school stuff.<br>

 

<p>This is obviously your opinion, not a fact: <i>Any tax collected for the redistribution of income is excessive.</i><br>

 

<p>Here is another one: <i>Other functions of government, such as maintaining security and order and funding minimal social programs and the infrastructure, are justified....</i><br>

 

<p>And another one: <i> No one should be taxed for income redistribution; no one would object to taxation for legitimate purposes of government. </i> (As an aside, note here the interesting statement "legitimate purposes of government." There's an entire academic discipline called "political science" that's devoted to deciding what the "legitimate purposes of government" are; I have no doubt, however, that you, in your infinite wisdom, know the answer, thus obviating an entire field of academics. Bravo. Think of the tax dollars you will save at state universities when they can cut their Poli Sci departments because of your insight.)<br>

 

<p> And another one: <i>If a man gets drunk, crashes his car into a tree, and is paralyzed, he should be supported to the extent that he cannot do so for himself.</i><br>

 

There are others, but this is a waste of time. Are you seriously so wrapped up in your own opinions, so certain they are correct, that you are unable to distinguish them from facts?

By the way, I'm not going to bother much with your other post on welfare, as it simply reveals you have a lot to learn about welfare. For example, the statement that "more people will grab for welfare," is nonsense, as the welfare rolls have been stable since 1980, while outlay as a percentage of governemnt spending has been declining, not growing as you claim.

Wrong, old boy. That particular post of mine is a series of opinions. None are presented as facts. Do I have to precede each statement by IMHO? Of course not. It is obvious that I am openly expressing opinion. If I said, "The United States has the most dangerous streets in the world," that is an opinion presented as a fact. Opinions expressed as facts can be refuted with the real facts. Opinions expressed as opinions may be disagreed with or shown to carry fallacious logic, but you can't refute them with facts simply because they do not present facts.

 

About the stable enrollment in AFDC. That, obviously, is a statement of fact. But it wants some clarification. Is that stable per actual number or stable per percentage of the population?

<<For example, the statement that "more people will grab for welfare," is nonsense, as the welfare rolls have been stable since 1980, while outlay as a percentage of governemnt spending has been declining, not growing as you claim>>

 

Whoops. You are saying that the welfare rolls have been stable. That is a different matter. Some areas of welfare might be declining while AFDC is increasing. We need to know what is going on with AFDC. And again, whether you speak of actual numbers or percentages.

 

Where do I say that outlay as a percentage of government spending has been growing? I can't find it anywhere. Is this what you wish I had said?

But of course you disuised opinion as fact. You made a statement, which is your opinion, and then built an argument on that statement, as if it were fact. I believe the actual fallacy at work here is called "The fallacy of complex questions;" however, this is a photography message board, not a rhetorical logic classroom.

 

While I'm at it, note that I originally said, "No red herrings about welfare," but of course, completely unable to support your assertion that taxes here are "excessive," you tried running away to a discussion on welfare. Nice try, but you didn't quite make it.

 

By the way, and just to play along, stating that "more people will grab for welfare" (despite rather extensive evidence showing this is false), implies that welfare expenditures are rising, bnut they aren't. Also, and unless you come up with something other than another weak attempt to save face, this will likely be my last comment on welfare, if welfare causes crime, why is it that the U.S., which spends far less on welfare than most other industrialized nations, has the highest crime rate of any industrialized nation? I could go on and deflate this line of reasoning, but it's unrelated to the original topic.

 

Finally, you got the name of your own book wrong. The correct name of the book is "Men & Marriage," not the "Men Women and Marriage" you said it was. Of course, reading one polemical book on a topic hardly makes one an expert on it anyway, even if one can correctly remember the title.

<<But of course you disuised opinion as fact. You made a statement, which is your opinion, and then built an argument on that statement, as if it were fact. I believe the actual fallacy at work here is called "The fallacy of complex questions....">>

 

The basic unit of an argument on matters of opinion is an enthymeme. Every enthymeme has one premise that is not fact, but opinion. Developing an argument from premises is not fallacious as long as the conclusion does follow from the premises. That you disagree with some of the premises is unremarkable; that's what argementation is all about.

 

I never heard of the fallacy of "complex questions."

 

<<"completely unable to support your assertion that taxes here are "excessive," you tried running away to a discussion on welfare. Nice try, but you didn't quite make it.>>

 

I suggested that "excessive taxes" are those that are imposed for the redistribution of income IF the redistribution is used for rewarding bad behavior. I gave AFDC as an example of a program that rewards bad behavior, and I explained what that bad behavior is: making babies and dumping them on the public's back, making babies to win higher amounts of AFDC, making babies as a bragging point and then not supporting them, making babies as a means to an end and then neglecting the babies. Your statement that I was running away to a discussion on welfare is the straw-man technique: misrepresenting my argument and then attacking that misrepresentation instead of what I actually said.

 

<<if welfare causes crime, why is it that the U.S., which spends far less on welfare than most other industrialized nations, has the highest crime rate of any industrialized nation?>>

 

I said that AFDC, not welfare, encourages the production of fatherless boys--who display high rates of crime. I would never say that crime has only one cause or that all social programs constitute that cause. You can pretend I said that--again the straw-man device--but it isn't so. The causes of crime are complex in a free economy with a grand mix of people--in which not all people identify with one another; in which some people relish competition and some people can't cut the mustard; in which some people have trouble controlling their impulses and deferring gratification, and in which a certain percentage of the population is, of course, just evil. The causes of crime are complex in any country. If you know what causes high crime rates in America specifically, then please take a quick flight to the Justice Department and tell them your secrets. You're the first person to figure it out.

 

By the way, if you don't agree to the existence of evil, you are disagreeing with one of my premises, not my argument itself. Write it out as an enthymeme and you will see.

 

Again, by the way: do you suppose anyone is reading this thread but you and me?

When you are young and rich, you are a Capitalist. When you are old and poor, you are a Socialist.

 

Just be sure, you are not old and poor.

To turn Socialist in your old age because you didn't provide for the future when you were young and rich sounds infantile. The lesson is not "don't be old and poor," but "don't be young and stupid."

 

And remember Churchill: "The man who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart. The man who is not a conservative when he is old has no brain."

With sales and profits down, a change in management, dependence on Panasonic for

digital products and continued reliance on 'investor-quality' non-user special edition

M-bodies for continued cashflow, anyone would be stupid to want to invest in Leica

today.

Although some people describe countries like Canada and Germany as "socialist," such descriptions reveal more about the writers' ignorance than they do about these countries' political/economic systems. And at the risk of seeeming "full of myself," I'll note that I am an economics professor teaching, among other courses, Comparative Economic Systems, International Economics, and Political Economy.

"I said that AFDC, not welfare, encourages the production of fatherless boys--who display high rates of crime."

 

Another ignorant statement. AFDC has not been in effect since 1998. The main federal welfare program is now TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). TANF is very different than AFDC.