iPhone 5 vs .50 Cal

SeaFoam said:
Here's an idea - if you don't like the video, don't watch it, don't bitch, do something else. If you do like it, then watch it, share it, etc.

Oh BOOOOOO HOOOO HE BOUGHT AN IPHONE 5 AND SHOT IT BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. HE'S A WASTEFUL ASSHOLE!

It's HIS money. He can do with it as he likes. I would LOVE to see some of you high and mighty people spend money only on your basic needs with no waste, while donating the entirety of surplus income to charity. You also have absolutely no idea what he does with the rest of his money, maybe he is extremely charitable and volunteers his free time helping the needy.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea: I reserve my right to watch something and dislike it.
 
Mohonri, that is highly partisan and does not fairly represent the data. Granted Zarathustra's is as well so let's be reasonable.

Mohonri said:
income gap growing since the 70's - both sides can cherry pick data all they want. That chart, for example, does not show the actual purchasing power of the various groups. Regardless of the number of dollars, purchasing power has increased dramatically. Or, put another way, people are vastly better off today than they were 40 years ago, regardless of income gap.
Click to expand...

This is highly misleading. You're misusing the term "purchasing power" as it relates to inflation, but we'll continue with what I think you mean. As to your point - purchasing power as related to what? CPI? CPI Less Food and Energy? The rise in average wages has typically trailed both and heavily trailed CPI Less Food and Energy - generally considered necessity goods. "Purchasing power" as it pertains to total consumer spending including non-necessity goods on the whole has increased due to manufacturing and production efficiency increases thus decreasing the scarcity of non-necessity consumer goods. So where in the 50's you may have spent a significant portion of your income on dress clothing, household appliances, entertainment goods, these things are now available for significantly less. However, housing, food, energy, and fuel costs have risen

It's interesting about the fuel costs - our gasoline taxes are some of the lowest in the world which is stupid given the costs to maintain the infrastructure and support the impacts of consumption by the automotive industry.


Mohonri said:
rich not paying their fair share - this has been debunked so many times, I'm not sure what planet you're living on here. The top 5% earn about 32% of all income and pay nearly 60% of the taxes. I'd call that paying way MORE than a fair share. About 47% of wage earners pay zero income tax at all. I hardly call *that* a fair share, either. If you want to drag SS/Medicare into the topic, we can have that discussion, but facts are facts: the wealthy already pay more than a fair share.

Or, put another way, if you confiscated all of the income, assets, houses, boats, stocks, companies, etc of all the millionaires and billionaires in the country, it would cover roughly one half of one year's deficit, and less than a quarter of one year's budget. Raising their taxes to 100% would hardly register as statistical noise in the amount of revenue generated. Clearly, taxing the rich isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

Misleading as well. In fact, this is worse than the first. Your numbers only include income taxes which discounts social security and the big one - capital gains. Highly progressive income taxes impact high wage earners the most - typically doctors, actors, etc. Income tax is a small piece of the pie. Capital gains are where most of the very rich make their money and pay less than 15% with deductions. Ask any financial advisor worth their salt what you do once you have money. Doctors sell their practices and invest. You make way more money once you have it - exponentially more.

You switched gears. Taxation shouldn't really be about the deficit. And the deficit hardly matters. Its rate of growth does, but that's even more complicated. I can't explain this to you in an internet post, but a country's budget is not like a household's. It does not need to be balanced. That is a misunderstanding and reducing a complicated idea to make it graspable for the average person. It is not. You can not understand a national budget/monetary policy without an education in economics be it self taught or otherwise.


Mohonri said:
1 in 6 struggle with hunger - are you referring to the 46 million who rely on food stamps? When the biggest health problem facing low-income households is *obesity*, I have a hard time taking that statistic seriously. As for cutting aid to the poor, I have a different philosophy: let charitable organizations handle it. They can do a much better and more efficient job than the government.
Click to expand...

This is a more controversial idea, but have you considered that self-directed charity to address social problems hinders social change? One of the reasons slavery lasted so long in this country was when people started treating slaves reasonably well and aid groups were created for them in the North. It took the South passing laws trying to get escaped slaves punished harshly and returned before the people really began to wake up.

Additionally, self-directed charity is often misallocated and useless - http://goodintents.org/interesting-articles-and-posts/bad-donor-advice-perpetuates-bad-aid-practices Large scale aid or really private organizations of any kind (see: Comcast) have an inherent amount of inefficiency. The way to solve this is to address and identify best practices and create accountability. The government has actually done a slow but steady job of doing this - Federal workers are at their lowest percent to our population currently and have been trending down.



Mohonri said:
transfer of wealth to the 1% - By what means is this money being transferred by the government? "transfer of wealth" means taking money (through taxes) from one entity and giving to another via subsidies, below-market-rate loans, and grants. I see the government transferring wealth from productive, profitable companies to failed companies like GM, Chrysler, and any number of "green" energy companies. I see government transferring wealth from productive middle-class earners and businesses to able-bodied people who are unwilling to work. I don't see it going the other way. Unless by "transfer of wealth" you mean allowing businesses to produce goods and services that people will *willingly* part with their cash to buy? Transferring wealth to the 1%? Ain't happenin', unless it's the 1% among "green energy" companies.
Click to expand...

If we had lost GM this country would be in bad shape right now. The bold is just blind partisanship. You only see that because you're told to do so. Our tax rates for middle class wage earners are globally very reasonable. We spend nearly double all assistance programs (including food, emergency shelter, etc) on defense. Discussing spending in this country without talking about defense, social security, and health care is disingenuous and ill-informed.

The reason middle class workers see less take home money than they used to is because we spend a ridiculous amount on health care per capita- http://www.commonwealthfund.org/New...ndustrialized-Nations-but-Quality-Varies.aspx We spend significantly more than even totally socialized countries due to the inefficiencies of how are system was borne and grew. HITECH seeks to resolve some of this, but much of it is due to insane care/labor costs plus incumbent administrative overhead.


Mohonri said:
draconian voter-id laws - Draconian? I think not! Only ten states require photo ID. All the other states which require ID will accept a whole range of other documents as ID. Things like a utility bill or bank statement. Those states which require photo ID make it super easy to get a photo ID.[/QOUTE]

Enacting legislation to enforce something that doesn't exist (http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/) should be completely against your principles if you are a conservative. That's just additional bloat at both the state and federal level. It also wastes judicial time which we all pay for.
Click to expand...
 
InternationalHat said:
This is highly misleading. You're misusing the term "purchasing power" as it relates to inflation, but we'll continue with what I think you mean. As to your point - purchasing power as related to what? CPI? CPI Less Food and Energy? The rise in average wages has typically trailed both and heavily trailed CPI Less Food and Energy - generally considered necessity goods. "Purchasing power" as it pertains to total consumer spending including non-necessity goods on the whole has increased due to manufacturing and production efficiency increases thus decreasing the scarcity of non-necessity consumer goods. So where in the 50's you may have spent a significant portion of your income on dress clothing, household appliances, entertainment goods, these things are now available for significantly less. However, housing, food, energy, and fuel costs have risen
Click to expand...
Housing costs per square foot have averaged about 4.2% per year since 1950. That's slightly less than inflation over the same period. So that statement is busted. Food as a percentage of income is also down. And energy consumption as a share of GDP has also steadily declined. Gee, so far you're striking out.

It's interesting about the fuel costs - our gasoline taxes are some of the lowest in the world which is stupid given the costs to maintain the infrastructure and support the impacts of consumption by the automotive industry.
Click to expand...
That's because the government doesn't pay for building and maintaining the fuel distribution network. Those gas taxes (are supposed to) go toward maintenance of roads, bridges and the like.

Misleading as well. In fact, this is worse than the first. Your numbers only include income taxes which discounts social security and the big one - capital gains. Highly progressive income taxes impact high wage earners the most - typically doctors, actors, etc. Income tax is a small piece of the pie. Capital gains are where most of the very rich make their money and pay less than 15% with deductions. Ask any financial advisor worth their salt what you do once you have money. Doctors sell their practices and invest. You make way more money once you have it - exponentially more.
Click to expand...
Ok, since you brought it up, let's talk about capital gains. You're ignoring the fact that capital gains are taxes twice--once as corporate profits, at 35%, which is the highest in the world, and then a second time as personal income, at 15%. That's an effective tax rate of just under 45%. So, rich people not being taxed fairly because of capital gains? Busted again.

Now, for medicare/SS. The rich won't get anything out of those systems, thanks to their income. They're paying into a system from which they will never benefit. Once again, rich people not paying their fare share? Busted.

You switched gears. Taxation shouldn't really be about the deficit. And the deficit hardly matters. Its rate of growth does, but that's even more complicated. I can't explain this to you in an internet post, but a country's budget is not like a household's. It does not need to be balanced. That is a misunderstanding and reducing a complicated idea to make it graspable for the average person. It is not. You can not understand a national budget/monetary policy without an education in economics be it self taught or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the "as long as the rate of growth of the deficit is less than the rate of GDP growth, we're ok" school of thought. Too often, however, it's used to rationalize spending on stupid stuff, if you'll pardon the expression. Such thinking also relies heavily on GDP always growing faster than politicians increase the deficit. I don't know about you, but that hardly seems like a safe line of thought.
This is a more controversial idea, but have you considered that self-directed charity to address social problems hinders social change? One of the reasons slavery lasted so long in this country was when people started treating slaves reasonably well and aid groups were created for them in the North. It took the South passing laws trying to get escaped slaves punished harshly and returned before the people really began to wake up.

Additionally, self-directed charity is often misallocated and useless - http://goodintents.org/interesting-articles-and-posts/bad-donor-advice-perpetuates-bad-aid-practices Large scale aid or really private organizations of any kind (see: Comcast) have an inherent amount of inefficiency. The way to solve this is to address and identify best practices and create accountability. The government has actually done a slow but steady job of doing this - Federal workers are at their lowest percent to our population currently and have been trending down.
Click to expand...
Let me work backwards. Federal workers as a percent of the workforce is actually steady. Aid organizations, at least the reputable ones, regularly publish how efficiently they spend donations. They also allow donors to decide which causes are worth their money. Want to send money to Africa? There's an org for that. Fight hunger in the US? Build homes for poor people? Search for a cure for cancer? There are orgs for that.

The US government creating accountability and identifying best practices in entitlement and welfare programs? I think James O'Keefe would like to have a word with you, painful as his videos are. Government bureaucracies are nearly synonymous with the exact opposite. As for efficiency, there's a very good reason why nationalized industries underperform private industries: there's no profit motive.

If we had lost GM this country would be in bad shape right now. The bold is just blind partisanship. You only see that because you're told to do so. Our tax rates for middle class wage earners are globally very reasonable. We spend nearly double all assistance programs (including food, emergency shelter, etc) on defense. Discussing spending in this country without talking about defense, social security, and health care is disingenuous and ill-informed.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand bankruptcy law. Had GM entered bankruptcy, here's what would have happened: bondholders and shareholders would have lost a bunch of money. The union contract would have been null and would have been renegotiated. The company, along with all its parts suppliers and dealers, would have largely continued operations as before. That's what bankruptcy law is about: allowing companies to restructure debt and continue operations. It has happened dozens of times in the airline industry. "If we had lost GM" = busted. You're not faring very well today.

The reason middle class workers see less take home money[sic] than they used to is because we spend a ridiculous amount on health care per capita- http://www.commonwealthfund.org/New...ndustrialized-Nations-but-Quality-Varies.aspx We spend significantly more than even totally socialized countries due to the inefficiencies of how are system was borne and grew. HITECH seeks to resolve some of this, but much of it is due to insane care/labor costs plus incumbent administrative overhead.
Click to expand...
I agree, we spend a whole lot more on healthcare IMO than I think we should. But to compare it to other countries is a bit apples-and-oranges. There are lots of factors that must be considered before declaring other systems as "better". In the US, we spend a huge amount on the very old and the very young, something which is not present to the same degree. We are willing to spend (on the aggregate) lots of money on treatments which have little chance of succeeding, or succeeding for long. We have a different lifestyle, exercise- and diet-wise, than many other countries. We have problems with malpractice suits and the accompanying defensive medicine. And we are heavily insulated from the true cost of health care via insurance.

Mohonri said:
draconian voter-id laws - Draconian? I think not! Only ten states require photo ID. All the other states which require ID will accept a whole range of other documents as ID. Things like a utility bill or bank statement. Those states which require photo ID make it super easy to get a photo ID.[/QOUTE]

Enacting legislation to enforce something that doesn't exist (http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/) should be completely against your principles if you are a conservative. That's just additional bloat at both the state and federal level. It also wastes judicial time which we all pay for.
Click to expand...
Doesn't exist? I'll take that gauntlet. Al Franken won his senate seat by 341 votes. 1,099 votes were cast by felons who should not have been allowed to vote. Without Franken's vote, Obamacare never would have passed.

Voter fraud exists and has consequences.

Busted, busted, and busted.

Have a great evening!
 
xblF4.gif
 
Voter fraud became an issue because Republicans wanted more power. If you'd like to spin that another way, then you're simply playing games.

Politics have a way of tainting the truth.
 
National industries don't require bureaucracy as a rule, nor does that preclude profit as a motive. Anyway, I think we may have gone a little OT...
 
Starcrossed said:
Voter fraud became an issue because Republicans wanted more power. If you'd like to spin that another way, then you're simply playing games.

Politics have a way of tainting the truth.
Click to expand...
If the true will of the people is in favor of the Republicans, and it is being suppressed by the absence of voter ID laws, then what's the issue with that?

LeninGHOLA said:
National industries don't require bureaucracy as a rule, nor does that preclude profit as a motive. Anyway, I think we may have gone a little OT...
Click to expand...
Not only does it remove the profit motive, but it replaces it with the motivations of the politicians at the top. So, for example, you get a government that taxes the people in order to provide below-market-rate loans to companies which are unprofitable and have no prospects for profitability (or repaying the loan), e.g. Solyndra.
 
I really enjoyed reading this great thread about wastefulness from a group of people invested in overclocked, high-end computer systems used to post text on message board forums.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
Yes, those who enjoy destroying things for whatever reason or purpose are morons, what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Nothing, apart from being a really stupid philosophy.

If it's not your shit that they're destroying, why do you care?
 
Mitt Romney: Feed the starving children? Darn Obama-kids need to learn to fend for themselves!


All kidding aside, people spend their money on hobbies ,building models, cars or buying iphones every release.

It's everyone's right to waste their money how they see fit :D
 
I don't think anyone has been complaining about the waste factor for a while. My only thought was that the guy is stupid. You guys just want to take a weak point and run with it. Probably because you "get-off" to guns or some crap. Who knows?
 
Starcrossed said:
I don't think anyone has been complaining about the waste factor for a while. My only thought was that the guy is stupid. You guys just want to take a weak point and run with it. Probably because you "get-off" to guns or some crap. Who knows?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that you don't like seeing people shoot things with guns? :confused:
 
Starcrossed said:
Probably because you "get-off" to guns or some crap.
Click to expand...

No more than you "get-off" to whatever your hobbies or interests are, but please...do continue sneering at the plebians who dawdle at your royal step, King Narcissist.
 
Stiletto said:
Nothing, apart from being a really stupid philosophy.

If it's not your shit that they're destroying, why do you care?
Click to expand...
I don't really care about it, but it is my opinion which I can have and freely present. On other hand, carelessness it's a bad thing, if someone gets raped, killed or injured, or ill or something else bad, why to care, it's not you so it's not important...
 
Acer_Sheep said:
I don't really care about it, but it is my opinion which I can have and freely present. On other hand, carelessness it's a bad thing, if someone gets raped, killed or injured, or ill or something else bad, why to care, it's not you so it's not important...
Click to expand...

Because if you don't care about a cell phone being broken, you clearly don't care about people being raped or killed. Thanks for that totally sensible comparison. :rolleyes:
 
The .50 cal vs. Iphone video now has 1,383,494 views. Youtube partners make from $2.50 to $5 per 1,000 video views, so ratedrr (the guy who posted and presumably made the video) just made from $3,458.74 to $6,917.47. The shooters's phone cost either $199, $299, or $399, depending on the model. Anyone who thinks that's wasteful is stupid.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
The .50 cal vs. Iphone video now has 1,383,494 views. Youtube partners make from $2.50 to $5 per 1,000 video views, so ratedrr (the guy who posted and presumably made the video) just made from $3,458.74 to $6,917.47. The shooters's phone cost either $199, $299, or $399, depending on the model. Anyone who thinks that's wasteful is stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should accuse anyone else of being stupid with that logic.
 
Starcrossed said:
I don't think you should accuse anyone else of being stupid with that logic.
Click to expand...

I've read quite a bit about logical fallacies (ipse dixit, ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, tu quoque, etc.), and would like to know what fallacies you think I'm committing by labelling anyone who calls the poster (RatedRR) who's making money from his iPhone-destroying video wasteful. I maintain that the poster's making a profit even after taking into account not just the cost of the phone, but also any production costs involved in the video. RatedRR's profit at the end of the day is thus not wasteful but instead productive, and my opinion remains that anyone who insists that it's wasteful is stupid.
 
Economically speaking, Deadly Ramon is right. RatedRR is destroying a physical object, but in the process is creating entertainment for a lot of people. The entertainment, though an intangible good, still has economic value greater than the economic value of the iPhone which was destroyed.

Or, put another way, the world spent $2 billion to watch Avatar, which is a similarly intangible product. Starcrossed, if we were to follow your logic, there would be no entertainment in the world.
 
Sigh... first of all, I just thought the guy was an idiot - I wasn't really offended by the waste. Secondly, no matter how much economic gain there was for the individual involved it was a materially wasteful thing to do.

Have your entertainment... if you find that entertaining then have at it.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
The .50 cal vs. Iphone video now has 1,383,494 views. Youtube partners make from $2.50 to $5 per 1,000 video views, so ratedrr (the guy who posted and presumably made the video) just made from $3,458.74 to $6,917.47. The shooters's phone cost either $199, $299, or $399, depending on the model. Anyone who thinks that's wasteful is stupid.
Click to expand...

Some thinks its wasteful some claim hes a moron, still have yet to see a really good reason as to why.
 
Trimlock said:
Some thinks its wasteful some claim hes a moron, still have yet to see a really good reason as to why.
Click to expand...

Just to play devils advocate, I'd say shooting a .50 un-aimed in rapid fire fashion is somewhat moronic. While there's nothing wrong about blowing through multi-dollar rounds of ammunition, it does seem somewhat stupid.

That being said, the video seemed fine, other than the fact that the iPhone wasn't secured to the table, and is thus less of a real test.
 
Trimlock said:
Some thinks its wasteful some claim hes a moron, still have yet to see a really good reason as to why.
Click to expand...

If I stated why he is a moron, it would be entirely too offensive to many people. Then, a bunch of people would attack my arguments, while, in truth, they would lie about their own similar feelings towards other people (akin to mine towards this guy.) It would be pointless, exhaustive "debate."
 
Starcrossed said:
If I stated why he is a moron, it would be entirely too offensive to many people. Then, a bunch of people would attack my arguments, while, in truth, they would lie about their own similar feelings towards other people (akin to mine towards this guy.) It would be pointless, exhaustive "debate."
Click to expand...

You poor baby.
 
Its his youtube channel , his phone and the case was provided to him. The point was made that the CASE is bullet proof but it fails at protecting the phone from a basic 4-5 foot onto a rock so it also didn't do so great.

I'm sure its made money enough to justify the video but even if it didn't I doubt it would matter. Who cares if its a waste? Did it cost you anything to enjoy watching it get shot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top