In praise of Brooks saddles

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 6:10:04 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 8:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/13/2019 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-8, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:59:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should
have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes
you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation,
and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the
spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a
public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe
that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the
public good, not allow the development of perversions
like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just
for being rich.


Oh! You mean like Bill Gates? Or maybe Larry Page? Or
Sergey Brin? Or
even Mark Zuckerberg?

I could go on, I suppose, but what's the sense, as you
know that the
world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being
rich.... even when
they made the money themselves.

As for money being a "public utility"? Hey, a really
great idea! And
how much of your salary will you be committing to this
scheme?

I think Chalo's point would be that those men did not make
money themselves. Gates, for example, didn't write a line
of code for DOS. He bought it from a guy who worked in a
local computer shop. It was a rip-off of CPM. Gates made
some good moves when IBM came calling looking for an
operating system, and the rest is history.

Gates was certainly captain of the ship, but he had a crew
and ultimately a huge crew. The question is whether the
crew was well treated, and judging by Seattle, Redmond and
Medina, I would say yes. Does Gates pay enough in taxes?
Maybe yes and maybe no -- Chalo would certainly say no,
and in 1958, the answer would certainly be no. He would be
in an 80% tax bracket.

I think it's undeniable that if you compare someone like
Bill Gates with an equally intelligent and motivated black
kid in the inner city, and if they both had precisely the
same idea for a business, the black kid would have far, far
less chance of getting rich. The difference was not the
dollar value of his inheritance. It was the background, the
opportunities, the connections.

The differences will probably be there forever. If your dad
is a prominent lawyer, you'll be able to meet and become
familiar with a lot more influential people than if your dad
is a janitor. IOW, "The poor you will always have with you."
But once someone is pulling in an income that's 100 times
what anyone needs to live in reasonable comfort, they should
be paying a much greater percentage of it to help keep our
society functioning. Hell, if it just went for pothole
repair, that would be something. How many Maseratis or
luxury homes does someone deserve?

It is tough setting brackets at a place that generates
enough revenue to run the country but avoids capital
flight. Tax policy is not easy. The Trump cuts, however,
were just foolish. They resulted in a massive deficit with
no trickle-down to ordinary Americans -- who will get left
holding the tab. Trump is now filling budget holes with
tariffs and SNAP and TANF cuts. Ordinary Americans will
pay the price of corporate tax rate cuts without any
reduction in the price of goods. It's not like corporate
America is passing on the tax savings to consumers.

I totally understand young people pointing out the massive
wealth gap and the unfairness of the system -- although
that is not a reason to ****-can the system. It just
needs fixing in a non-torch and pitchfork way.

Yes. And making the tax system more progressive isn't
torching the system. It's worked before.




The US tax system is among the most punitively 'progressive'
on earth already.


The US now has one of the lowest corporate rates in the world. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/1...t-World-Report That's just based on corporate rate and doesn't speak to total tax burden. The US has no VAT, as you know, which probably moves the US even lower in terms of total business tax burden.

The money to run the country has to come from somewhere. Would you prefer it to come from even more borrowing? Why would you cut taxes and increase borrowing when the economy is booming. Any rational business would use surplus revenue to pay down debt.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/14/2019 10:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 6:10:04 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 8:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/13/2019 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-8, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:59:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should
have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes
you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation,
and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the
spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a
public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe
that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the
public good, not allow the development of perversions
like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just
for being rich.


Oh! You mean like Bill Gates? Or maybe Larry Page? Or
Sergey Brin? Or
even Mark Zuckerberg?

I could go on, I suppose, but what's the sense, as you
know that the
world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being
rich.... even when
they made the money themselves.

As for money being a "public utility"? Hey, a really
great idea! And
how much of your salary will you be committing to this
scheme?

I think Chalo's point would be that those men did not make
money themselves. Gates, for example, didn't write a line
of code for DOS. He bought it from a guy who worked in a
local computer shop. It was a rip-off of CPM. Gates made
some good moves when IBM came calling looking for an
operating system, and the rest is history.

Gates was certainly captain of the ship, but he had a crew
and ultimately a huge crew. The question is whether the
crew was well treated, and judging by Seattle, Redmond and
Medina, I would say yes. Does Gates pay enough in taxes?
Maybe yes and maybe no -- Chalo would certainly say no,
and in 1958, the answer would certainly be no. He would be
in an 80% tax bracket.

I think it's undeniable that if you compare someone like
Bill Gates with an equally intelligent and motivated black
kid in the inner city, and if they both had precisely the
same idea for a business, the black kid would have far, far
less chance of getting rich. The difference was not the
dollar value of his inheritance. It was the background, the
opportunities, the connections.

The differences will probably be there forever. If your dad
is a prominent lawyer, you'll be able to meet and become
familiar with a lot more influential people than if your dad
is a janitor. IOW, "The poor you will always have with you."
But once someone is pulling in an income that's 100 times
what anyone needs to live in reasonable comfort, they should
be paying a much greater percentage of it to help keep our
society functioning. Hell, if it just went for pothole
repair, that would be something. How many Maseratis or
luxury homes does someone deserve?

It is tough setting brackets at a place that generates
enough revenue to run the country but avoids capital
flight. Tax policy is not easy. The Trump cuts, however,
were just foolish. They resulted in a massive deficit with
no trickle-down to ordinary Americans -- who will get left
holding the tab. Trump is now filling budget holes with
tariffs and SNAP and TANF cuts. Ordinary Americans will
pay the price of corporate tax rate cuts without any
reduction in the price of goods. It's not like corporate
America is passing on the tax savings to consumers.

I totally understand young people pointing out the massive
wealth gap and the unfairness of the system -- although
that is not a reason to ****-can the system. It just
needs fixing in a non-torch and pitchfork way.

Yes. And making the tax system more progressive isn't
torching the system. It's worked before.




The US tax system is among the most punitively 'progressive'
on earth already.


The US now has one of the lowest corporate rates in the world. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/1...t-World-Report That's just based on corporate rate and doesn't speak to total tax burden. The US has no VAT, as you know, which probably moves the US even lower in terms of total business tax burden.

The money to run the country has to come from somewhere. Would you prefer it to come from even more borrowing? Why would you cut taxes and increase borrowing when the economy is booming. Any rational business would use surplus revenue to pay down debt.

-- Jay Beattie.


I made no argument on corporate rates[1] and I don't set US
policy.

Had BHO asked me about breaking a million cars I would have
advised against it. He didn't. Had DJT asked me about
tariffs against allies ( Brasil? WTF?) I would have advised
against that. He didn't either.

IMO tariffs against China are still too lame and too low.
This is a pirate state, actively destroying intellectual and
economic wealth. Then again, I do not set policy.

In my view revenues are way too high but spending is way to
high at a magnitude more than that[2]. We would most
probably disagree but you don't set policy either.

[1] There's a very good argument to be made, and economists
make it, that corporations should not be taxed, only
employees and shareholders. I'm sympathetic to that
argument. The malinvested capital and dislocated actions
more than offset the revenue. YMMV.

[2]In my youth, Defense was half the Federal budget. It's
down to some 12% or so depending on how the VA is scored.
Defense spending is thin, the Navy in particular is
underfunded and underequipped, and most of the non-defense
budget falls between wasted and counterproductive.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:00:24 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

The US does not have the luxury of Chapter 11.

Stick to the law, Jay. You don't know **** about economics either, or realpolitik. If Donald Trump were to wake up in the morning with a sore head (everyone should consider themselves lucky that he's a teetotaller -- heh-heh) and announce that the US were repudiating all her foreign debts, everyone else except the US would hurt. (Here's a hint: he wouldn't put it like that, he'd announce the US was changing over to the Coyote Standard or some such.) And they'd immediately start buying US Treasury Bonds again, because they have too much stake in the US economy to let it slow or go under. And if they were slow, Trump would only have to hint that he was nationalising their US assets at nightfall for them to see the sense and logic of his position.

Ande Jute
If you owe the bank a thousand dollars you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars you *won't* pay, the bank is in trouble.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:17:36 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

The US has no VAT,

Crap. What do you think VAT is? It's a sales tax, same as State sales taxes in the US.

And I might also mention that State income taxes are taxes on the consumption of those so poor they cannot afford to move to the Southwest.

Andre Jute
First, get your definitions straight. Know precisely what the terms mean.

Appropriately for the headline, about a famous saddle, there's a lot fundament-talking in this thread. -- AJ

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:35:08 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
In another thread some people are bashing Brooks saddles.

This is the space for them to claim they weren't bashing Brooks saddles.

I can't join them. Though it is true that for a long time I drank their koolaid and assumed a Brooks saddle is one of those tools, like drop bars, that cyclists choose as agents of self-mortification, when I did buy a Brooks (B73, thick leather hammock, triple stiff helical springs, double rail mounting springs, fifty quid on sale at SJS, makers of the much-admired Thorn bikes -- Sheldon had one), I found it so comfortable that now, ten years later, you will have to pry it from my cold dead bum. I don't remember breaking it in either. It is now, allowing for a few scrapes and scuffs, exactly the same shape as it was 10K+ back.

The way I ride on the downhills a firm, positively locating saddle is imperative. There's no point to expensively developing a fast, secure bike and then buying from a bike-fashion boutique some narrow saddle that you need to clench onto. I call those "jaillhouse saddles" for the obvious reason.

Ande Jute
The herd ran the other way

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 10:59:50 AM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation, and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the public good, not allow the development of perversions like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being rich.

No one forces you to work for any specific employer in a free market. That's what FREE means. If you don't like what this guy is paying go somewhere else if that job doesn't pay more change your career path. Again that is what FREE means. You are not trapped in anything. I dropped out of high school, went into the Air Force which gave me 3 months of technical training. When I got out of the service I started working as and electronics technician. That didn't pay enough for I studied and became a self-made electronics engineer. When that didn't pay enough I because a senior EE and added programming to my repertoire. Eventually I became a manager which paid even more.

My father and two brothers spent their entire lives working in a single position and they were not very happy if not that unhappy. So it is up to YOU and not some employer. If auto assemblers won't work for the going wage and automation will not do the fine work, assembler wages rise.

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 11:42:04 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 12:59 PM, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation, and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the public good, not allow the development of perversions like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being rich.


Good luck with that.

As Tom Sherman often noted, people who advocate communal
systems stop short when asked to share one toothbrush with
the neighborhood.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I think that there is something seriously wrong with people who believe that economics is a zero sum game. If a man is rich, that doesn't mean that you are poor. Yet that is the Marxist strategy for pushing socialism. Of course Marx himself lived a happy and free life in London living off of the fortune his father left him.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 6:10:04 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 8:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/13/2019 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-8, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:59:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should
have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes
you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation,
and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the
spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a
public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe
that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the
public good, not allow the development of perversions
like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just
for being rich.


Oh! You mean like Bill Gates? Or maybe Larry Page? Or
Sergey Brin? Or
even Mark Zuckerberg?

I could go on, I suppose, but what's the sense, as you
know that the
world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being
rich.... even when
they made the money themselves.

As for money being a "public utility"? Hey, a really
great idea! And
how much of your salary will you be committing to this
scheme?

I think Chalo's point would be that those men did not make
money themselves. Gates, for example, didn't write a line
of code for DOS. He bought it from a guy who worked in a
local computer shop. It was a rip-off of CPM. Gates made
some good moves when IBM came calling looking for an
operating system, and the rest is history.

Gates was certainly captain of the ship, but he had a crew
and ultimately a huge crew. The question is whether the
crew was well treated, and judging by Seattle, Redmond and
Medina, I would say yes. Does Gates pay enough in taxes?
Maybe yes and maybe no -- Chalo would certainly say no,
and in 1958, the answer would certainly be no. He would be
in an 80% tax bracket.

I think it's undeniable that if you compare someone like
Bill Gates with an equally intelligent and motivated black
kid in the inner city, and if they both had precisely the
same idea for a business, the black kid would have far, far
less chance of getting rich. The difference was not the
dollar value of his inheritance. It was the background, the
opportunities, the connections.

The differences will probably be there forever. If your dad
is a prominent lawyer, you'll be able to meet and become
familiar with a lot more influential people than if your dad
is a janitor. IOW, "The poor you will always have with you."
But once someone is pulling in an income that's 100 times
what anyone needs to live in reasonable comfort, they should
be paying a much greater percentage of it to help keep our
society functioning. Hell, if it just went for pothole
repair, that would be something. How many Maseratis or
luxury homes does someone deserve?

It is tough setting brackets at a place that generates
enough revenue to run the country but avoids capital
flight. Tax policy is not easy. The Trump cuts, however,
were just foolish. They resulted in a massive deficit with
no trickle-down to ordinary Americans -- who will get left
holding the tab. Trump is now filling budget holes with
tariffs and SNAP and TANF cuts. Ordinary Americans will
pay the price of corporate tax rate cuts without any
reduction in the price of goods. It's not like corporate
America is passing on the tax savings to consumers.

I totally understand young people pointing out the massive
wealth gap and the unfairness of the system -- although
that is not a reason to ****-can the system. It just
needs fixing in a non-torch and pitchfork way.

Yes. And making the tax system more progressive isn't
torching the system. It's worked before.




The US tax system is among the most punitively 'progressive'
on earth already.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

We can thank the union supported Democrats for that. In times of need such as the world wars it was easy to support that idea but after WW II, the unions wanted to lynch President Eisenhower for reducing the 90% tax on "the rich".

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
John B. wrote:

But why do you insist making your comparison with a society that has,
in many cases, been "on the dole" for generations, that apparently has
no motivation what so ever to hold a job.
[...]
Or to put it another way, how do you help someone who makes no effort
to help himself?

Your eagerness to conflate "no motivation to hold a job" and "no effort to help himself" with unwillingness to contribute to or participate in a system that has cheated and repressed him/her for hundreds of years, and continues to do so, is duly noted. You are entitled to your opinion, but it would make more sense after appropriately scaled reparations are made in full.

As for me, I withhold my participation in a corrupt and broken economic system by only working for my friends (for as little time and money as I can manage to survive on), buying the minimum necessary of the cheapest and simplest possible supplies, making and salvaging almost everything else, and freely gifting and bartering my time and abilities. The first rule of not being manipulated is to minimize the places where your adversary can get a grip on you.

Having too deep a vested interest in a bad way of doing things makes you a worse person. Just look at what car ownership has done to people's character and scruples. The pursuit of money is even worse. And to judge by results, the possession of a concentration of wealth is worst of all.

Just admit it - you are a thief without the courage to hold the gun in your own hand.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/14/2019 9:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/14/2019 9:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 8:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes. And making the tax system more progressive isn't
torching the system. It's worked before.

The US tax system is among the most punitively
'progressive' on earth already.

Got numbers on that?




16th of 195 :
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/c...-income-taxes/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Don't feed the trolls. If that moron isn't knowledgeable enough to look it up himself let he sink into his own swamp of hatred and crap.