The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Nabubrush on November 30, 2010, 06:12:24 pm
-
Fox News is sabre-rattling about the tax cuts - the implication is that the Dems are holding things up because they want families making less than $50k to have to pay $3k more in taxes, when in reality it's the GOP who wants the families making $500k to not have to pay $10k more and therefore they want all the tax cuts extended, when the rich guys could probably stand to pay a bit more (and notice the difference in proportions there).
I hate Fox News, and I hate Boehner.
-
death is the best tax cut ever
-
all the super-hiked revenues since reagan's days in office haven't solved our issues, maybe it's time to stop relying so much on revenues and let some tax rates ease back up toward something more sane. something like the top 10% of earners in the US own 80% of the wealth in the nation, and the poverty and unemployment rolls just keep getting longer. this isn't a picture of a world-leading superpower, a land of opportunity. slowly but surely we're becoming an oligarchy masked as a republic, amassing a class of superelite rich who control the purse-strings and thereby our policies. something's gotta give.
-
all the super-hiked revenues since reagan's days in office haven't solved our issues, maybe it's time to stop relying so much on revenues and let some tax rates ease back up toward something more sane. something like the top 10% of earners in the US own 80% of the wealth in the nation, and the poverty and unemployment rolls just keep getting longer. this isn't a picture of a world-leading superpower, a land of opportunity. slowly but surely we're becoming an oligarchy masked as a republic, amassing a class of superelite rich who control the purse-strings and thereby our policies. something's gotta give.
...becoming. Rrrrright.
-
When taxes go up, revenues go down.
You can change the revenuers game how-what you what, but there it is.
I think that's more true for those that don't have much as opposed to those that have lots. And if you'll note the comparo there, The haves are paying proportionally less than the have nots. I mean, 50k pays 3k and 500k pays 10k? I can do math. Yeah, yeah, the tax rate is higher for rich people, but we all know they don't pay it.
-
Yeah, yeah, the tax rate is higher for rich people, but we all know they don't pay it.
This is kind of a point that gets lost amongst the Eat The Rich crowd. When the cost of paying taxes gets intolerable, more effort will go towards stashing/hiding income (offshore bank accounts, exploiting loopholes with the aid of lawyers specializing in byzantine tax code, etc).
-
The highest income earners pay the bills in this country, they also buy the debt we print to perpetuate this contrived diabolical government death spiral. The uberwealthy and retired who live on dividends and interest have only recently been given the cap gains tax break.
Heres what IM saying: Keep those cap taxes out of the picture while taxing the hell out high-incomes and more people will retire and live off their investments. The old senior management is then out of the picture, sucking the junior management into higher positions for less pay - saving the company money they can then use to hire more labor = more people working, higher profits, less unemployment, more people paying into the tax system to support the entitlement programs.
I've heard two other schemes Im not willing to get behind: Tax wealth, not income. You start taxing Dick Fuld's 450 million dollar art collection, and he'll be more likely to spread the money to other more productive ends.
The other one would only make sense to an economist: Tax the lowest earners the highest amount, because you know, they need some motivation to work harder so they can pay less taxes.
In other tax related news, I learned today that the government wants to subsidize my R&D budget with a tax credit (because they want us to invent things in America)... so now the race is on to make things be R&D costs.
-
man, I really like that now, when I read people saying that 250k isn't that rich, I can say "that is considerably more than 10 times my income."
I cannot imagine what I would do with that much money.
(OK, actually, I guess I can if I had a family and kids and house and car and stuff. otherwise, it's guitars all the way down.)
-
250k doesn't get you into the stratosphere like it used to, and with inflation, $1M=$250k by the time we're looking at retirement. If you made $250k a year you would likely buy and maintain home and family. Or you could do what my friends are doing and just look for a f'ing island to buy where you can escape all the people you pissed off while you were making your money. Seriously people, young, single, married-to-their-careers, aggressive dudes with nothing to spend money on has resulted in a really entertaining scenario that involves guns, lion steak, and conversations about the best island to buy.
Everything in the world is like some Dada performance art piece and we've all been roped into acting gigs.
-
Says the guy talking to a point I already left in the dust...
Well, let's not get all excited about not staying on topic, given the thread didn't stay on topic two posts.
-
Everything in the world is like some Dada performance art piece and we've all been roped into acting gigs.
Is it too late for me to audition for a different part?
-
Interesting thing about 250k...it ain't rich, at least not that right now kind of rich...but if you live smart and give it 40 years you can go to your golden years doing PDG.
This is awesome. I love that it has come to this. You live smart, making 250k/yr, and in 40 years you can do pretty damn good. The rest of you lollygagging goldbrickers can go hang.
-
Admit it, man, private islands are more interesting anyways.
"I just want a fortress on an island where I can store my toys and guns. And it has to be remote enough that the only way to get to me is by helicopter and boat. If someone wants to bother me, they're gonna have to jump through some serious fuck*ng hoops"
-
But will there be cell phone reception?
-
But will there be cell mobile phone reception?
-
But will there be cell phone reception?
Im pretty sure at that stage in the game he's thinking satellite link ups, or a phone that works through his internet connection (which may or may not be a satellite connection, but if the island is electrified from the grid they can probably figure out how to run a fiber optic or coax cable up in there)
-
There aren't going to be any phones when the fuck*ng zombies take over. That's the end point of owning an island, as far as I can tell.
-
Oh I know, it just struck me as funny - "Hey, all you gotta do is knock down a quarter mill a year for 40 years or so, and if you scrimp, you might not spend your golden years fighting homeless people for cans of Alpo!"
-
When taxes go up, revenues go down.
I'd like to see evidence of this wrt federal income taxes.
Or capital gains.
-
But will there be cell phone reception?
If you hate people so much that you want to live alone on an island, why would you want them to be able to call on the phone?
-
To be fair, I think it's traditional to accept a request to cite when making claims.
-
well-stated, nabu. it follows the time honored rule of thumb "pics or shens"
-
When taxes go up, revenues go down.
You can change the revenuers game how-what you what, but there it is.
Ah, the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve). But how can you be sure we're past the mid point. On half of the graph, revenue's increase when taxes go up. How do you know we've reached that tipping point?
-
citation rejected as opinion and anecdote; please relate facts and data. there has to have been a study done.
-
Dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell) appears to get a lot of support from conservative organizations. American Enterprise Institute and Bradley Foundation aren't exactly unbiased, FWIW. He does seem to have some interesting ideas, though.
I will say that likening Obama's speeches to students to "Hitler Youth" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909040018) is sort of extreme.
-
I'm not seeing the George Mason connection - am I looking at the wrong guy? (I see Stanford, Harvard, Cornell, etc, so I'm not saying he's a hack.)
-
That's a senior professor at George Mason University talking.
Then he should be familiar with the studies and be able to cite them.
-
It seems to me that Ash's assertion is, in fact, heavily contested*. Perhaps the board's resident economist could chime in.
*Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/carter-reagan-revenue/
This Treasury Department paper says that Reagan's big tax cut, the ERTA, decreased revenue**:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf (table on page 17)
Looking at graphs of federal revenue provides no simple answers, as the revenue goes up almost every year
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
There is big drop from the last year of Clinton to the first years of W, presumably because of the big tax cuts in tandem with the post-9/11 recession.
I seem to remember a Reagan economist asserting ~5 years ago that the supply-side/revenue relationship had been misunderstood and the claim was never that cutting taxes would increase revenue, but that it might maintain revenue due to economic growth in a best-case scenario. I can't find that specific story right now, though.
**It also mentions that almost all post-war tax bills have been tax cuts owing to inflation/bracket creep. Given that, perhaps the brackets should just be shifted upward. Then we could argue whether $300k/year (as opposed to $250k) is rich.
-
hey man the onus is on you is all i'm saying
-
When you cut taxes and/or increase financial aid (certainly unemployment, anyway) to the poor and the middle classes, it stimulates the economy because they're in a position where they can't not spend it.
The rich already got money and are probably already spending everything they're comfortable spending at the moment, so it goes generally into their various reserves... or into investments that just redistribute capital amoungst the wealthy without stimulating the broader economy... or at best, go into luxury purchases that have little effect on the larger economy as they're produced by themselves-wealthy artisans or wholly overseas or are large collectables purchases that, again, simply redistribute wealth amongst the rich.
If I were obscenely wealthy and I, say, purchased a Honus Wagner card for a million and a half dollars, it would be awesome for me to have that card and all that but the money I spent would go largely to the dude who previously owned the card and to a lesser extent to some already upperclass suits at the auction house.
1.5 million in unemployment checks to 10,000 laid-off folks will probably end up buying... food from local grocery stores, gasoline from the local gas station, maybe a few extra Christmas gifts from the mall up the road... directly getting the overall American economy churning again.
Whatever else we're talking about here, remember: there is no logical defense of trickle-down economics. IDEO-logically, sure, but not logically.
-
how will taxes be able to be cut if they will be paying for the upcoming healthcare reform?
-
Yeah, I'm no economist, but I tend to think folks with a lot of money will plow it into business and create jobs if there is money to be made. That's why so many of the big banks took their bailout money and kinda sat on it: because they were paranoid about the environment and not sure they could make money with it.
If you tax people SO MUCH that they have no money left over to invest, well, that's not good. But for people who are obscenely wealthy (of course, your definition of this may vary), I don't see such people saying "Well I COULD put this spare million into adding production to my factory, as there is sufficient demand for our product, but I'm so pissed about the other $100K I paid in taxes this year that I'm just going to take a bath in it like Scrooge McDuck."
-
My rich-guy dad agrees with LFM.
Weird.
His line is basically "there is nothing that I want that I can't afford, except things that are big enough that a tax return is not going to make a difference."
The other thing I have recently learned from my dad is, don't wait until you are retired to buy the car you've always wanted. You are a lot more likely to have some shitty reason you can't drive it by then (in his case, an increasingly bad back.)
I have basically given up at having opinions/knowledge of economics. It is my Evolutionary Biology.
-
The question becomes, ultimately, where you see the function of American government to lie.
If you see the main function of government as being the protection of the privileges of the privileged class because you either (a.) are of the privileged class, (b.) mistakenly believe you're part of the privileged class, (c.) believe that you are going to join the privileged class or (d.) believe your children will join it, then... sure... you should probably support taxes that support that structure.
As long as you're being honest about it.
If you see the main function of the government as being... anything other than placating the people who have wealth (not just prosperity, mind you, but WEALTH) then... well, we gotta have another discussion.
Honestly, if the super rich don't wanna be active partici##### in this shared society commiserate to the fruits they've reaped from it, they CAN get the fuck out. They already shelter most of their holdings quasi-legally out of country anyway, with corrupt multinational corporations and bookkeeping tricks to begin with.
They can leave, abandon their businesses and allow them to be rebuilt or replaced by small businesswomen and men who would be happy for the opportunity to crawl out from under their semi-monopolies at the cost of paying a fairer share in taxes. The kind of actual patriotism that Fox News would never mention.
It astonishes me the extent of the Stockholm Syndrome required to say "America, love it or leave it!" to immigrants showing token affection to their motherlands or to people who don't believe in war and yet no one yells it at wealthy tax dodgers. The extent to which this culture has an undercurrent of "Don't knock down the people this system is rigged for because WHO KNOWS you could be next!" it... I'm not surprised that it exists, I guess I'm just surprised the extent to which is accepted without question or comment.
-
You need to read Atlas Shrugged so bad it hurts. Look dude, you don't want to live in a country where the best and brightest are actively encouraged to leave the country. "Hey youre a really effective leader and manager of resources, you should get the fuck out of my society" Who in their right mind comes up with that kind of BS? And where do you get this idea that somehow government is competent at doing anything? There has never been and never will be a government capable of perpetually sucking up resources and then distributing them back out so that we all end up even. In America we believe everyone has the right to start off on equal footing and what you do from there is on you, not your neighbor. If you don't like how we've arrived as the greatest nation on the face of the earth, you sir, are free to vote with your feet and move to one of these socialist paradise countries you dream of. I hear France has something like that, but you know, things arent going so swell for them over there. Or hell, go balls out and move to North Korea where private industry and money and investors and private property are all eliminated, surely you would enjoy such a place that lacks all of these capitalist vultures gouging the middle class.
And there you have it, you successfully trolled me, but this is the end of our sloppy makeout session.
-
I've skimmed Atlas Shrugged.
It was the heartless savage ravings of a woman's batshit obsession with the fact that the commies wrecked up her dad's career and so she didn't get to live out an easy life as a pretty pretty princess.
And its tendency to lapse into shambling rambly rants made me look like Dr. Terse Tersington, PhT. (The T stands for Terse.)
I gave up on it faster than "Lord of The Rings" which was my previous standard for impenetrability.
Plus, it was a novel, it did not actually happen. This is an important thing to keep in mind.
The people we're talking about AREN'T effective leaders or managers. They're effective solely at skimming off the top, finding loopholes to protect their bread and give as little back to society at large for their grotesque earnings as their public relations managers and lobbyists can allow them to get away with. Have you... watched the news in the last five years? Or read... any history books?
And the lack of actual equal footing is what we're talking about, man. I'm no socialist, I'm pro-business that's small enough and regulated enough to not slouch toward monopoly.
If you're happy with the illusory vision of "equal footing" because you feel you can game it, you think you have the tools to get into the rigged end of the game... and from your talk, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders... I totally understand why you believe this is the best system for your personal sense of your needs.
But again, all I ask is honesty about it.
-
Yeah ok whatever I dont have time for this. I'm right, and you're a person who is wrong on the internet. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine person, but the days of these kinds of conversations on the internet are behind me.
-
Fair enough.
Other than our disagreements on this set of subjects, you are certainly a rad dude who I'd gladly buy a beer for were I in the same bar.
I'm just sayin', this is my position on these things. Inserting them into this discourse seemed a useful counterpoint s'all.
-
You need to read Atlas Shrugged so bad it hurts. Look dude, you don't want to live in a country where the best and brightest are actively encouraged to leave the country. "Hey youre a really effective leader and manager of resources, you should get the fuck out of my society" Who in their right mind comes up with that kind of BS? And where do you get this idea that somehow government is competent at doing anything? There has never been and never will be a government capable of perpetually sucking up resources and then distributing them back out so that we all end up even. In America we believe everyone has the right to start off on equal footing and what you do from there is on you, not your neighbor. If you don't like how we've arrived as the greatest nation on the face of the earth, you sir, are free to vote with your feet and move to one of these socialist paradise countries you dream of. I hear France has something like that, but you know, things arent going so swell for them over there. Or hell, go balls out and move to North Korea where private industry and money and investors and private property are all eliminated, surely you would enjoy such a place that lacks all of these capitalist vultures gouging the middle class.
Because it has to be all or nothing. A governmental system must be completely anarcho-libertarian-capitalist or deeply red communist. There's no possible way we could use a blend of systems to create a better result, because everything must be explained by one single ideology.
Ayn Rand was a fuck*ng lousy novelist and a worse philosopher.
-
Eh, we agree. The thing is, in this system you have to take some wildly extreme ideology to pull the median in any direction. So people walk around talking about socialism or libertarianism and the end result is a blend of the best of both. Like at work I have to put absurd timetables on the board in hopes of reaching the realistic one. Like if you tell a group of people to meet at 10am, they will all show up at 10:15, but if you say 'meet me here at 9:30' then everyone is assembled by 10. If we were are all reasonable and efficient people, this kind of psychological gamesmanship wouldn't be necessary.
-
AW gets a reasonable can for a reasonable man.
If you don't like how we've arrived as the greatest nation on the face of the earth, you sir, are free to vote with your feet and move to one of these socialist paradise countries you dream of. I hear France has something like that, but you know, things arent going so swell for them over there. Or hell, go balls out and move to North Korea where private industry and money and investors and private property are all eliminated, surely you would enjoy such a place that lacks all of these capitalist vultures gouging the middle class.
Dude, when you're talking about arriving at being the greatest nation or earth are you ignoring the periods when the highest income tax bracket was over 80%? It hasn't all been one way or the other as far as I can tell and the love it or leave it argument is pretty weak to my mind. Apart from anything else plenty of the Nordic countries are socialist as all get out and do consistently well by most measures of quality of life. Conversely I can't think of any countries of any consequence that I'd describe as embodying pure free-market capitalism. But then that's your area of expertise so I could be wrong.
Edit: Awww I write all this and then you go and make a completely reasonable point.
-
Wait a minute, wasn't I already through that territory on page 1? I mean, with less smarm?
Smarm? Moi!? Never.
-
now I want to come up with a word for that thing Ash has that isn't smarm. It definitely isn't smarm, it is like a more aggressive form. mutated by internet radiation.
Now I am looking up the dictionary definition of smarm/smarmy, and feeling like this definition is not the same thing I use it to mean.
-
OK, yeah, I see how it is. All gaming the system in favour of the can-vantaged.
I got my eyes on youse guys.
If you give more cans to those who already have cans, they'll feel more generous and start giving more cans to those without cans. That's just basic economics.
-
If you give more cans to those who already have cans, they'll feel more generous and start giving more cans to those without cans. That's just basic economics.
Can.
-
If you give more cans to those who already have cans, they'll feel more generous and start giving more cans to those without cans. That's just basic economics.
Yes, can. I hope this is trickle-down canonomics, and not the voodoo kind.
-
"we need to extend unemployment benefits for the seven million citizens that the bush tax cuts and my stimulus plan haven't created jobs for."
"NOT UNLESS YOU EXTEND THEM TAX CUTS TO THE RICH MOTHERFUCKER"
"but what about cutting spending? what happened to your deficit hawk stance?"
"TROLOLOLOLOLO"
-
This tax cut thing is just fuck*ng pissing me off so much.
-
Go ahead, up my taxes. My business needs a new truck and my rental property needs a washer/dryer, new carpeting and paint.
It ain't like people haven't gamed out how to tell the tax-man to go bite the wax tadpole, y'know.
Yeah. Unfortunately poor folks usually tell them by just not paying, as opposed to rich people who do it by sheltering their money as directed by their financial planners. Oh well, I luck out by being in the latter group.
-
meanwhile, stuck firmly in the middle class, i can't get away with not paying my taxes because that'll lead to jail time; and i don't have enough money to shelter anything quasi-legally outside the country or even in the stock market.
thanks, reaganomics!
-
Yeah. Luck.
Suuuuure
I'm honest enough to admit that the only reason I am sitting in the catbird seat is a combination of dumb luck, attrition, being too lazy to try to succeed at something I really want to be doing, and right place right time.
The closest I ever came to being paid for what I went to school for is when I put out the employee newsletter at a Sam's Club (technical communication degree).
-
Ah. I thought you were denying that it was luck that got me there, when you seem to be saying that I'm not that lucky to be in that boat. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, though. I will say I am glad to pay more taxes if it means I don't have to make dinner out of whatever the local 7-11 gives away in terms of condiment packets. I don't miss that.
-
While there are lots of good arguments against taxes I've never thought "we're really bad at making sure people pay them" is a good one. I mean no one has accepted that for drug laws.
-
Go ahead, up my taxes. My business needs a new truck and my rental property needs a washer/dryer, new carpeting and paint.
It ain't like people haven't gamed out how to tell the tax-man to go bite the wax tadpole, y'know.
This is part of your argument? Seems like it would be great for American economy if richer folks started spending money/investing in their businesses in order to avoid paying taxes.
-
This is part of your argument? Seems like it would be great for American economy if richer folks started spending money/investing in their businesses in order to avoid paying taxes.
YES!!!!Man listen, people hear "tax cuts for the rich" but they never actually read the damn code. Theres giant tax advantages for investing in businesses, but the administration hasn't done a good job of communicating how that all works. I'd save bonkers money and bonkers more if the R&D tax credit was extended.
-
YES!!!!Man listen, people hear "tax cuts for the rich" but they never actually read the damn code. Theres giant tax advantages for investing in businesses, but the administration hasn't done a good job of communicating how that all works. I'd save bonkers money and bonkers more if the R&D tax credit was extended.
YES!!!YES!!!YES!!! If the whole idea behind tax cuts for rich folks is that they'll invest the money they aren't charged in taxes in businesses or jobs or what have you, doesn't it make more sense to give them an effective tax cut through credits? Like, ok, you get a tax break, but only if you do something actually useful with your money?
-
There you go. Given, as Ash said, that rich folks are going to game the system as much as they possibly can, provide them with ways they can game and still do some good. I'm still not convinced that extra money to rich folks does as much actual good for the economy in proportion as extra money for the poor or middle class does, but it's gotta do some good if pur in the right place (not sheltered for some undeserving silver-spoon fucko).
-
Ash, sometimes it can be hard to tell if you are being straight.
Me, on the other hand, I'm always talking shit so my stuff is easy to parse.
-
Were you guys seriously so busy making out that you totally missed the fact that Eggman and Acap just agreed with each other? On fiscal policy?
Seriously, I would have replied sooner but I was busy having a stroke from the shock of it all.
-
today, an obscure internet message board solved American tax policy.
-
Were you guys seriously so busy making out that you totally missed the fact that Eggman and Acap just agreed with each other? On fiscal policy?
Seriously, I would have replied sooner but I was busy having a stroke from the shock of it all.
I bet we agree on more than we disagree on.
This would be an interesting time to link to The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index). Have we done this before? I'm at roughly (-5,-5).
-
Idealistically, I'm pretty right libertarian at -6/4.26. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that libertarianism only works if we're all grown-ups, and there is a critical mass of immature adults that keeps that system from working in the US these days.
-
man, so many of those questions just make me want to write a paragraph instead of clicking one of the little buttons.
like, "Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support." what does that mean? If A-Cap is asking me that question it means something different than if my old lefty-roommate asked me that question, etc.
also, astrology? what?
"Some people are naturally unlucky."???
-5.75, -6.56
-
I don't know how it happened, but my co-ordinates came out as -5.63 + 6.34i, -6.21 - 4.86i
-
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21
-
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
Aww, yeah, baby. I'm in the Gandhi quadrant!
Also, who's going to plot all these results on a single chart for us?
-
Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that libertarianism only works if we're all grown-ups, and there is a critical mass of immature adults that keeps that system from working in the US these days.
Civilization only works if we're all grown-ups. This is the problem.
I hate quizzes like this. I don't feel like I need to write a paragraph but I feel like there needs to be a middle option, like "not sure" or something. It seems to me that a big part of the problem in politics is people stating strong opinions on subjects they don't have enough information about.
But, I am stuck in a cold house unable to get started on accomplishing anything while I wait for the heating technician to come so I did it anyway. -5.38, -5.74. Apparently that is awfully close to "classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism" for someone who has no idea what that means.
-
I'm roughly the Dalai Lama (-4.88, -7.03). Just don't ask for a little something, you know, for the effort (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000195/).
-
WHOA!
I'm glad I was sitting down for that.
-
Could be worse. Could be flipped to the opposite corner of Hitler and Uncle Milty.
-
WHOAH
Commie
-
As if there was ever any doubt, I landed slightly more libertarian than milton friedman.
-
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
-
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
Nice job!
-
I'm an outlier amoungst outliers?
Hoorah!
-
Hooray, I'm the most moderate of the liberals!
-
Uh, the blue one.
-
Cans for excel.
Also, did anyone catch the press conference today with President Clinton? Where Obama literally said "I've been keeping the first lady waiting for 30 minutes" and left the press conference about, you know, the sate and fate of the United States Economy? That's called a manager who is disconnected from reality. At that point the guy is no longer acting in the interest of anyone but himself - because if it hits the fan, he just moves on with his life.
-
historically, U.S. economic growth was greater when progressive taxes on the rich and corporations and tariffs were higher.
historically, U.S. unemployment rates were lower when progressive taxes on the rich and corporations and tariffs were higher.
When a Republican office holder starts proclaimin for tax cuts, it is code for policies that will raise the payroll taxes for most people and small businesses. It is code for economic policies that generally leads to increases in local property and sales taxes.
-
Even a talking dog can understand this!
-
Correlation =/= causation.
-
Correlation =/= causation.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png)
-
Correlation =/= causation.
Well, in general, but everything isn't mutually exclusive.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png)
As much as I'm meh about XKCD these days I love that particular comic an absurd amount.
-
Yeah, when XKCD is good, it's gooooood.