Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@davidmoran; "the destructive manager" When I opened the link I assumed it was a mutual fund manager, since this is a mutual fund website. How stuipid of me, I forgot it's davidmoran, the Trump basher !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Regards, Ted
Yeah, thanks, I read it a while ago, and found it very troubling and stirring.
Of course it is true the guy [Coates, this is --- edit] does not and cannot see any white actions or behaviors through any other lens; for him there are no other contexts or background or partial explanations. Or much other white agency overall. But then, you know, he does pretty well make the case.
The only thought experiment he did not mention, or maybe he did, was if that pizzagate sicko who walked into Comet and shot at the ceiling had been nonwhite, just imagine how long he woulda lasted. 4y sentence, 3y probation, $6k fine, instead of being mowed down in a jiffy. Come on.
@LB- Thanks for that link. The situation reminds me a bit of the current wildfires in Northern California: there is so much danger on so many fronts that it makes it almost impossible to focus on a single area long enough to accomplish any effective damage control. And you can't make me believe that he isn't well aware of this, and exploits it to the maximum advantage. If things do sort of quiet down a little, he deliberately starts something new to divert attention from other stuff that he's sneaking behind the scenes.
He doesn't have what it takes to function intelligently or effectively at the world leadership level, but he is a past master at showmanship and stage magic.
@davidrmoran Excellent article on Google. I hadn't read that one. It also makes complete sense that Google is like the Internet's id while Facebook is the more sanitized ego. It's also scary the sense to which all of us are now being monitored online.
"It's also scary the sense to which all of us are now being monitored online."
@LewisBraham- The data set referred to in the Vox article was most likely "sanitized", (i.e. no personal information included) but still, it's most likely that someone at Google could access that information if so desired.
I completely agree with your comment regarding online monitoring, and years ago began avoiding Google whenever possible because of that. DuckDuckGo is an excellent alternative search engine, and they do not track you.
The swing to the right in this country’s been in motion for 30 years or longer. Not the same as the lunatic fringe we’re now confronting - but allowed it to develop. The cable media rates an F on this. They fan the flames of divisiveness any way they can because it attracts eyeballs. Remember the 24/7 coverage of the Simpson trial? To me, that was the first time the racial divide really hit home (not that it wasn’t already there).
Same in Europe (the right wing fringe and associated racism). Worse in some of the Nordic countries from what I read. And gaining strength in Germany.
David, he’s reached out appreciatively to motorcyclists, truck drivers, coal miners, and the NRA. To the contrary, he seems to loath journalists, government workers, and educators. Could be he’s more of a “hands on” type person. Also, while not exclusively male dominated, those groups he’s most keen on tend to be more traditionally associated with the male gender.
Nice to see @Ted participating by linking the WP - my choice for hard Washington news. (But I don’t read their editorials - which apparently is what he linked to.)
The column is labeled opinion ("The Plum Line - Opinion"), the concluding paragraph begins "In my opinion", and the paper's description of the column is: "The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call 'opinionated reporting' from the left"
That's quite a bit different from what I might read in a NYTimes column labeled News Analysis, which often appears on p. A1.
I expect to be able to reproduce or source data in an analysis column, but can't make sense of:
As the Tax Policy Center points out, estates with a gross value of under $5.49 million are exempt from the estate tax; more than two-thirds of taxable estates come from the top 10 percent of earners and nearly one-fourth come from the top 1 percent. This means that in 2017, only 80 taxable estates would have qualified as farms and small businesses.
That's citing the Tax Policy Center (TPC) for data. But TPC doesn't say that the 80 taxable estates follows from the preceding data (which it, unlike the WP column, puts in a different paragraph). How could it? There's no data given about the total number of taxable estates or the percentage of those that are small farms/businesses. So there's no way that "80 taxable estates 'would have qualified' as farms and small businesses."
"That means" is designed to have the reader gloss over the numbers and trust that sound analysis was applied. In fact, even the phrasing "farms and small businesses" is wrong. TPC wrote: "small farms and closely held businesses", not all farms, and it defined a small farm as one in which the farm/business assets were over half the estate, and also that those assets were less than $5M. So already we can see that if these estates are even subject to estate tax, that's largely the result of bad tax planning.
While I'm not expressing disagreement with the overall picture being painted, I am questioning characterizing the column as analysis. Its lack of attention to detail doesn't support that.
Anyway, the charge was 'editorial'. (But of course good editorials contain analyses.) Maybe Johnston is full of it too. Perhaps Johnston's DCReport.org is not to be trusted. Here's their credo: 'DCReport is a unique, nonprofit news service that reports what the President and Congress DO, not what they SAY. We are founded on core investigative journalism principles of research, fact-checking, and reporting in plain English how you and your family are affected by what happens in Washington, D.C.'
Got to be quick/sloppy here (sorry). Not much difference between an editorial and an op-ed beyond whether the writer is on the editorial staff. All are opinion pieces. No big deal.
I'm disinclined to take opinion pieces (editorial or otherwise) as objective analysis. Contrary facts may be elided, and "analysis" such as it is, tends to be weak. Facts and data tend to be grabbed in support of a preconceived position rather than understood and analyzed carefully.
That's the point I was trying to make. Not questioning the raw data, but whether there was that level of comprehension of what the data even meant. Not when the data were misquoted, described inaccurately, and supposed reasoning applied when none existed.
I've briefly skimmed the Federalist writeup. Looks much more solid. FWIW, it uses at least one graphic from the USDA analysis I cited. I'd already seen the CBPP stuff, which in turn sources the same TPC analysis. (Same problem as I noted in another thread, where all news reports led back to the same Politico story.)
The WP column does cite a TPC report giving 80 small farms and closely held businesses (defined to be estates under $10M). 50 or 80, I've seen both in 2017 TPC-based pages. The difference isn't meaningful.
I'm questioning (among other things) how they arrive at the number, any number, from general estate tax returns. Unless one has data showing that small farm/business estates have the same profiles as all the other taxable estates, one can't safely apply general estate tax statistics to small farms. For example, one can't blithely assert that the average small farm/business estate is taxed at the same rate as the average sub-$10M estate. (A potential error acknowledged in the Johnston trucking analysis; but at least there the blogger described how the trucking figures were arrived at.)
In short, I don't see analysis so much as selected facts and pretense of showing how they fit together. Regarding the DCReport.org description - I see lots of fact/data reporting; not much in the way of analysis (even less as I spot check their pages). Which is okay - the site is a reporting, not an analysis site.
Here's a better WP fact check column than the one cited in the original article (look for "special use valuation"). It points out that farms get additional tax breaks, so you can't just take the gross estate value of small farms. It's not that this info wasn't available at the Post; it's that diligent analysis doesn't seem to have been the objective.
While I agree with the analysis of @msf re the opinion piece under discussion, I feel remiss that I wasn’t as precise in my earlier reference to “editorial” as I might have been. I subscribe to the WP, which is delivered daily to my Amazon Kindle device. Technically, I suppose, the subscription is to an Amazon Kindle service, rather than directly to the WP, since Amazon serves as a type of “middle-man” for publishers, skimming a profit from the subscriptions they deliver. In this case, however, the distinction is negligible, since Jeff Bezos owns both Amazon and the WP.
I gladly pay a $12.00 monthly subscription fee for the ad-free edition of the Post. In an era of strained finances in the journalism industry and a sustained siege by some political figures, I’m happy to help the cause of a free press with my subscription fee. I avoid the opinion pieces most days mainly for lack of time. I feel I’m capable of forming my own opinions on the issues - and so read newspapers mainly for their hard news content.
Here’s where confusion may exist: My edition of the WPdoes not distinguish among the various types of “opinion” within. The newspaper includes just one (broad) Editorial section (so labeled) in which it presents an assortment of articles that might be considered: analysis, opinion, and/or letters to the editor, along with the more traditional form of “editorial“ stating the opinion of the newspaper’s publisher. I agree that’s a bit unusual. I searched many definitions of “editorial” (in pursuit of accuracy here) and did find the following explanation.
“A newspaper publishes its views on current events -- both local and national -- on its editorial page. This is where letters to the editor, political cartoons, and editorials -- unsigned commentary that reflects the collective position of the newspaper's editorial board -- appear. Letters are often among the best-read section of any newspaper, for this is where readers express their opinions ... Editorials are not news, but rather reasoned opinion based on facts ...
I think the linked article from @Ted I referenced falls within the Post’s definition of editorial as broadly applied. Others may wish to make further distinctions.
An opinionated 'analysis' that probably does not pass your deep-dive criteria, but Krugman today tweeted (following Johnston's approach) 'An estimated 30 trucking businesses paid *any* estate tax last year. Using same method, I get 10 (ten) farms'. Fwiw.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
If you haven't already read it, read this:
https://theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/
Of course it is true the guy [Coates, this is --- edit] does not and cannot see any white actions or behaviors through any other lens; for him there are no other contexts or background or partial explanations. Or much other white agency overall. But then, you know, he does pretty well make the case.
The only thought experiment he did not mention, or maybe he did, was if that pizzagate sicko who walked into Comet and shot at the ceiling had been nonwhite, just imagine how long he woulda lasted. 4y sentence, 3y probation, $6k fine, instead of being mowed down in a jiffy. Come on.
Did you see the latest google megadata inference article? Talk about racism, wow. Very depressing:
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/6/13/15768622/facebook-social-media-seth-stephens-davidowitz-everybody-lies
And then there's this:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-ditka-nfl-protests-20171010-story.html
In any case, Coates here seems a lot more measured than in that previous cruel (wittingly, seemed to me) thing to wrote notionally for his son.
He doesn't have what it takes to function intelligently or effectively at the world leadership level, but he is a past master at showmanship and stage magic.
and the new legend can say not only off-topic but 'occasionally treasonous'
@LewisBraham- The data set referred to in the Vox article was most likely "sanitized", (i.e. no personal information included) but still, it's most likely that someone at Google could access that information if so desired.
I completely agree with your comment regarding online monitoring, and years ago began avoiding Google whenever possible because of that. DuckDuckGo is an excellent alternative search engine, and they do not track you.
The swing to the right in this country’s been in motion for 30 years or longer. Not the same as the lunatic fringe we’re now confronting - but allowed it to develop. The cable media rates an F on this. They fan the flames of divisiveness any way they can because it attracts eyeballs. Remember the 24/7 coverage of the Simpson trial? To me, that was the first time the racial divide really hit home (not that it wasn’t already there).
Same in Europe (the right wing fringe and associated racism). Worse in some of the Nordic countries from what I read. And gaining strength in Germany.
Here’s the Google search in case above WP link fails to work.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wp+spencer+to+speak+at+u+of+fla&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwichsaxxufWAhVBNSYKHYbVDoAQBQgiKAA&biw=768&bih=890
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/10/11/this-may-be-trumps-most-insulting-scam-yet
Regards,
Ted
(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1067&bih=491&q=this+may+be+trump's+most+insulting+scam+yet+Washington+Post&oq=this+may+be+trump's+most+insulting+scam+yet+Washington+Post&gs_l=psy-ab.3...25488.105983.0.106351.47.47.0.0.0.0.160.3494.41j4.45.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.25.2023...35i39k1j33i21k1j33i160k1.0.OKQfCg3-FlU
To the contrary, he seems to loath journalists, government workers, and educators. Could be he’s more of a “hands on” type person. Also, while not exclusively male dominated, those groups he’s most keen on tend to be more traditionally associated with the male gender.
Nice to see @Ted participating by linking the WP - my choice for hard Washington news. (But I don’t read their editorials - which apparently is what he linked to.)
I figure most here know by now how to launch a private / incognito browser session to get around many paywalls.
That's quite a bit different from what I might read in a NYTimes column labeled News Analysis, which often appears on p. A1.
I expect to be able to reproduce or source data in an analysis column, but can't make sense of: That's citing the Tax Policy Center (TPC) for data. But TPC doesn't say that the 80 taxable estates follows from the preceding data (which it, unlike the WP column, puts in a different paragraph). How could it? There's no data given about the total number of taxable estates or the percentage of those that are small farms/businesses. So there's no way that "80 taxable estates 'would have qualified' as farms and small businesses."
"That means" is designed to have the reader gloss over the numbers and trust that sound analysis was applied. In fact, even the phrasing "farms and small businesses" is wrong. TPC wrote: "small farms and closely held businesses", not all farms, and it defined a small farm as one in which the farm/business assets were over half the estate, and also that those assets were less than $5M. So already we can see that if these estates are even subject to estate tax, that's largely the result of bad tax planning.
While I'm not expressing disagreement with the overall picture being painted, I am questioning characterizing the column as analysis. Its lack of attention to detail doesn't support that.
If you want a real analysis of estate tax liability of small family farms, here's a detailed page from the USDA:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/federal-tax-issues/federal-estate-taxes/
Here TCP says 50, unless I am reading this wrong, as I know you will explain:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/28/heres-need-know-estate-tax-family-farmers/
This from
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax
See also http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/10/news/economy/farmers-estate-tax/index.html for more. The number 80 is not present. Nor here:
http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/death-tax-killing-american-family-farms/
And did you read the yahoo link (not family farms)?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-enlist-truckers-help-sell-tax-plan-101131352.html
The blogger reports the next (trucking) data came from Johnston. He's pretty clear about those inputs and so on in the three paras after 'this means'.
Anyway, the charge was 'editorial'. (But of course good editorials contain analyses.)
Maybe Johnston is full of it too. Perhaps Johnston's DCReport.org is not to be trusted. Here's their credo:
'DCReport is a unique, nonprofit news service that reports what the President and Congress DO, not what they SAY. We are founded on core investigative journalism principles of research, fact-checking, and reporting in plain English how you and your family are affected by what happens in Washington, D.C.'
I'm disinclined to take opinion pieces (editorial or otherwise) as objective analysis. Contrary facts may be elided, and "analysis" such as it is, tends to be weak. Facts and data tend to be grabbed in support of a preconceived position rather than understood and analyzed carefully.
That's the point I was trying to make. Not questioning the raw data, but whether there was that level of comprehension of what the data even meant. Not when the data were misquoted, described inaccurately, and supposed reasoning applied when none existed.
I've briefly skimmed the Federalist writeup. Looks much more solid. FWIW, it uses at least one graphic from the USDA analysis I cited. I'd already seen the CBPP stuff, which in turn sources the same TPC analysis. (Same problem as I noted in another thread, where all news reports led back to the same Politico story.)
The WP column does cite a TPC report giving 80 small farms and closely held businesses (defined to be estates under $10M). 50 or 80, I've seen both in 2017 TPC-based pages. The difference isn't meaningful.
I'm questioning (among other things) how they arrive at the number, any number, from general estate tax returns. Unless one has data showing that small farm/business estates have the same profiles as all the other taxable estates, one can't safely apply general estate tax statistics to small farms. For example, one can't blithely assert that the average small farm/business estate is taxed at the same rate as the average sub-$10M estate. (A potential error acknowledged in the Johnston trucking analysis; but at least there the blogger described how the trucking figures were arrived at.)
In short, I don't see analysis so much as selected facts and pretense of showing how they fit together. Regarding the DCReport.org description - I see lots of fact/data reporting; not much in the way of analysis (even less as I spot check their pages). Which is okay - the site is a reporting, not an analysis site.
Here's a better WP fact check column than the one cited in the original article (look for "special use valuation"). It points out that farms get additional tax breaks, so you can't just take the gross estate value of small farms. It's not that this info wasn't available at the Post; it's that diligent analysis doesn't seem to have been the objective.
I gladly pay a $12.00 monthly subscription fee for the ad-free edition of the Post. In an era of strained finances in the journalism industry and a sustained siege by some political figures, I’m happy to help the cause of a free press with my subscription fee. I avoid the opinion pieces most days mainly for lack of time. I feel I’m capable of forming my own opinions on the issues - and so read newspapers mainly for their hard news content.
Here’s where confusion may exist: My edition of the WP does not distinguish among the various types of “opinion” within. The newspaper includes just one (broad) Editorial section (so labeled) in which it presents an assortment of articles that might be considered: analysis, opinion, and/or letters to the editor, along with the more traditional form of “editorial“ stating the opinion of the newspaper’s publisher. I agree that’s a bit unusual. I searched many definitions of “editorial” (in pursuit of accuracy here) and did find the following explanation.
“A newspaper publishes its views on current events -- both local and national -- on its editorial page. This is where letters to the editor, political cartoons, and editorials -- unsigned commentary that reflects the collective position of the newspaper's editorial board -- appear. Letters are often among the best-read section of any newspaper, for this is where readers express their opinions ... Editorials are not news, but rather reasoned opinion based on facts ...
I think the linked article from @Ted I referenced falls within the Post’s definition of editorial as broadly applied. Others may wish to make further distinctions.
From How Stuff Works: http://people.howstuffworks.com/newspaper3.htm
An opinionated 'analysis' that probably does not pass your deep-dive criteria, but Krugman today tweeted (following Johnston's approach) 'An estimated 30 trucking businesses paid *any* estate tax last year. Using same method, I get 10 (ten) farms'. Fwiw.