|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 00:38 oneofthem wrote:On February 11 2016 00:34 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2016 21:45 oneofthem wrote:
the much higher middle class tax burden You need to look at tax statistics. The US middle class are fucked. The poor are too poor to have anything worth taxing and the rich are too rich to pay more than 15%. The superrich do still pay a lot of tax but that's only because 15% of 90% of the money is still far more than 40% of the remaining 10% of the money. ive said in the past the middle class is at about a 40% or more effective rate when considering the state tax and so on, and prob same with europe when benefits are considered. however, additional revenue required to transform u.s. to quasi european situation would take higher tax on the middle class because the portion of income tied to payrolls cant run away. it would be great to tax capital without affecting the underlying companies tho. You think there's no alternative to an aristocratic low tax class and a permanent underclass so any money has to come from the middle? I agree that we don't need to take more money from the middle class but we can certainly take money from the very rich and that money can expand the middle class at the expense of the underclass.
there are potential new areas of taxation and revenue, but some of it would require rewriting the world of international finance law so that markets don't just pack up and run away when there is a bit of tax. sweden and italy had pretty bad empirical experience with this a while back.
the big fat cat of taxing the financial sector is something we'd like to see happen of course, and hillary has proposed a tax on high frequency trading. the recent literature in that area seems to support a tax or at any rate paint that industry as producing some adverse selection externality (clogging up the market with noise so that other parties are not certain on price), enough to not make it a net benefit.
the big thing driving inequality as i see is that the highly organized corporate form is simply going to be more efficient than low tech and scale shops. a globalized supply chain will be, at least in this particular path dependent development, more competitive than nationalized economies even in the united states. the owners of these equities will reap the reward of further concentration. then the private ownership of land value accentuates the inequality between haves and have nots.
the banks are highly regulated nowadays and imo there is not much space for tackling the fundamental driver of inequality in the real economy just by demonizing finance. goldman isn't where the big money is at, it's in private equity and overseas shops.
some of our international 'allies' like the u.k. are even more allergic to taxing fat cats in places like the caymans. without an effective international institution able to get at this stuff taxation will be largely trouble for the middle class.
|
On February 10 2016 23:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.orgpapers.ssrn.comedit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong.
People listen to Krugman and Stiglitz, because amongst neoclassical economists (because they are... did they ever refuted the dominant model ?), they're the most intelligent - a fact for anybody who knows about economy a little and read about Krugman's work (on economic geography or international trade) and stiglitz work (on information for exemple, he is like one of the dominant figure of modern economics, please...).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:
Hillary's greatest strength, her experience in the system and the supposed "inevitability" of her campaign, is also her biggest weakness. Bernie has been one of the least aggressive candidates in pointing out her weaknesses, and frankly taking campaign contributions is the least of her worries. I think that while that doesn't look positively on her, it's not exactly something that people are going to care all that much about unless she fumbles and makes herself look terrible when defending the accusation. One analysis I saw suggested that considering how much Wall Street was part of her experience, she should have done more to defend the ethical side of Wall Street than to just fumble like this - it would have been a weakness, but one that would be harder to rally against.
What's more painful is the fact that she does have a lot of stink in her history. The Emailgate honestly does seem a fair bit more credible than Benghazi, seeing as the FBI has been investigating it and it sounds like a just plain terrible security violation to anyone who has worked with government secrets. The Clinton legacy is overall positive, but with many flaws and quite a few credible points of criticism. I think there was a reason she didn't win in 08, and that has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people just aren't into the idea of Hillary being the president.
I think the existence of the Sanders campaign damages her more in the Democratic primaries than anything that the Sanders campaign has actually said or done. There have been quite a few instances of perceived bias (Iowa is seen as a corrupt affair by many) and a few of very clear bias (DNC, CNN, etc have been extremely partisan lately to the point that it's obvious). The more Clinton campaigns against him, the more she resorts to adopting similar positions to him (his popular talking points) and to playing identity politics. Whether or not those strategies beat Sanders, they make her look petty and untrustworthy and could alienate voters. Should Hillary end up winning the Democratic nomination, her having been pulled to the left by Sanders will only look bad to voters who would already be predisposed towards voting Republican. Like others have said, Sanders presence in the campaign can be pretty easily characterized as a win-win for Democrats.
Moving to the left isn't really the problem, but more so that it makes her look like a flip-flopper (this burned her hard vs Obama last time) and just disingenuous in general. This effect does add up and in a lot of ways, the more she talks the less people like her.
On February 11 2016 00:15 opisska wrote:
I still don't really comprehend how this whole thing works. It seems that the voters are incredibly manipulable in the US. The changes in the poll percentages for the individual candidates are absolutely stunning. Even more surprising to me is the influence of single scandals and dug up dirt on the results and how some small missteps can completely ruin a politician. I mean, if you used the US view on our politicians, you would probably have to concede, that the president has to be a cat or a porcupine, because there are just no humans good enough available.
Polls are pretty tentative because early on, most voters are undecided or worried most about who is viable in the general election. The inaccuracy and instability of polls has been a notable point of concern this election.
|
On February 11 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 23:42 RvB wrote:On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.orgpapers.ssrn.comedit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong. People listen to Krugman and Stiglitz, because amongst neoclassical economists (because they are... did they ever refuted the dominant model ?), they're the most intelligent - a fact for anybody who knows about economy a little and read about Krugman's work (on economic geography or international trade) and stiglitz work (on information for exemple, he is like one of the dominant figure of modern economics, please...).
Among parrots they're the smarter really isn't that great in my book 
|
it's super edgy and cool to say that people who are basically the top of their field aren't worth listening to. cuz, that's like just your opinion man*
*opinion meaning conclusion derived from a lifetime of research and work besides the best and brightest in one's respective field
on a side note, i find myself agreeing with whitedog. what a world we live in. 
|
On February 11 2016 00:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
It doesn't help that the media is happy to present a very, very simplified and biased conflict narrative since that's what sells. I'll acknowledge fully Hillary has had plenty of missteps, sure, but along with 20+ years of mistakes, she has 20+ years of accomplishments, and experience and knowledge. What a lot of young people know isn't her, it's a caricature largely designed by Republicans.
You can only get to this conclusion with a complete whitewashing of her history. As I have said all along, Hillary is a not a good politician. It's her inherent weakness -- more than Bernie's ideological draw -- that is complicating her path to the nomination. Again, let me remind everyone that she has never won a truly competitive political race. Never. She's a flawed presidential candidate for any number of reasons -- all of which will continue to be exposed and harped on as the race continues. It's not like Bernie supporters are pulling their criticisms of her out of thin air.
|
That's the result of the course in economics I've taken. They were given by people who were supposed to be pretty good in their field. Any mediocre physics teacher had a better understanding of the epistemology on which their discipline rest than those people, who were by the way unable to explain clearly the only math theorem they use every two line. Parrots.
|
On February 11 2016 01:07 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:On February 10 2016 23:42 RvB wrote:On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.orgpapers.ssrn.comedit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong. People listen to Krugman and Stiglitz, because amongst neoclassical economists (because they are... did they ever refuted the dominant model ?), they're the most intelligent - a fact for anybody who knows about economy a little and read about Krugman's work (on economic geography or international trade) and stiglitz work (on information for exemple, he is like one of the dominant figure of modern economics, please...). Among parrots they're the smarter really isn't that great in my book
Well to see Krugman's and Stiglitz's value, you have to accept the neoclassical model as a basis, which is not something a sane person would do unless they want to apply for a job that needs them to do so (which was my case).
I respect Stiglitz a lot tho, he has amazed me in some of his conferences. He himself clearly acknowledged the fact that the neoclassical model was ridiculous in some regards, but could not be recognized as an economist without accepting it, so he decided to criticize it from within in his youth (by pointing out the few problem that arose even if you accept it is as true, like any problem in regards to information).
By the way, gogo Bernie.
|
so its 9k mmr reddit all over again.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 01:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
That's the result of the course in economics I've taken. They were given by people who were supposed to be pretty good in their field. Any mediocre physics teacher had a better understanding of the epistemology on which their discipline rest than those people, who were by the way unable to explain clearly the only math theorem they use every two line. Parrots.
it's a lot of that for sure, but this is not really the same as saying the discipline is useless. the way the field moves is kind of like a guy who insists on following apple maps while also bumping into things along the way and changing his course accordingly. so there are these 'reality shocks' like the financial crisis or the depressions and occasionally people able to incorporate obvious shit like 'information' or 'institution' into the simple mainstream models. these shocks force feed the field and bump the conversation to include stuff that the model previously ignored.
the other side is that these are people who do study the economy and markets, and your amateur physicist isn't really doing that. there is a great deal that experience can cover that a faulty theory leaves open.
as far as the alternative, it's not really good enough to offer a replacement grand system. there are piecemeals like the MMT people on government debt and so on, and to some extent the heterodox idea that the market is moreso monopolistic competition is incorporated into new keynesian take on neoclassical modeling.
|
On February 11 2016 01:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 01:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
That's the result of the course in economics I've taken. They were given by people who were supposed to be pretty good in their field. Any mediocre physics teacher had a better understanding of the epistemology on which their discipline rest than those people, who were by the way unable to explain clearly the only math theorem they use every two line. Parrots. it's a lot of that for sure, but this is not really the same as saying the discipline is useless. the way the field moves is kind of like a guy who insists on following apple maps while also bumping into things along the way and changing his course accordingly. so there are these 'reality shocks' like the financial crisis or the depressions and occasionally people able to incorporate obvious shit like 'information' or 'institution' into the simple mainstream models. these shocks force feed the field and bump the conversation to include stuff that the model previously ignored. the other side is that these are people who do study the economy and markets, and your amateur physicist isn't really doing that. there is a great deal that experience can cover that a faulty theory leaves open. as far as the alternative, it's not really good enough to offer a replacement grand system. there are piecemeals like the MMT people on government debt and so on, and to some extent the heterodox idea that the market is moreso monopolistic competition is incorporated into new keynesian take on neoclassical modeling.
oneofthem explained us that the alternative is not really good, so everything is now clear and we can go back to drawing offer and demand curve.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well it's not that flattering to say a field's theory is entirely inadequate starting point and only manage to adjust because of mistakes too large to ignore. maybe when the agency based models get sophisticated enough we'll get something better and less theory laden. i'd like to be a corrupt bureaucrat in such a model making arbitrary decisions
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
While economics has a solid enough mathematical foundation, it is deeply flawed in that every change you can make can have multiple contradictory outcomes based on factors you will have trouble accounting for. A lot of it is done on empirical evidence obtained from observation. The result is often partisan and rarely clear cut.
It's a lot easier to see what is objectively bad than to be able to say whether or not a policy is actually good.
|
Christie's officially pulled out of the race. What's Christie going to do with all his free time, since he ended his presidential run today and ended his effort to govern New Jersey months ago?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 01:54 LegalLord wrote:
While economics has a solid enough mathematical foundation, it is deeply flawed in that every change you can make can have multiple contradictory outcomes based on factors you will have trouble accounting for. A lot of it is done on empirical evidence obtained from observation. The result is often partisan and rarely clear cut.
It's a lot easier to see what is objectively bad than to be able to say whether or not a policy is actually good.
the mathematical foundation of economics is kind of like trying to fit humans into the role of atoms with vast simplifications. the foundation is not really on the math which is simple if the ontology is simple, it's on the ontology which is lacking
|
well everything we think we know will be a lot less viable anyway in the near future. if in fact we can incorporate big data into the scientific modus operandi.
pretty much all of the major (economic) theories/"truths" were made based on "some insanely smart guy sees a pattern - tries to make a theory of it - gets data to prove theory - theory accepted"
now with big data it can be somewhat the other way around - less guessing and ideological mindset of the certainly gifted and awfully smart scientist though.
and if people finally start treating economics as a social science, it would be a good start. too many fuck ups for my taste. even lawyers agree on more stuff.
|
On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want.
That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people are too appearance focused with hillary it's crazy. for supposed progressive sanders supporters too
|
On February 11 2016 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Christie's officially pulled out of the race. What's Christie going to do with all his free time, since he ended his presidential run today and ended his effort to govern New Jersey months ago?
Maybe he can hand over the keys to a person who knows what he/she is actually doing in my state.
|
On February 10 2016 23:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 23:34 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid.
Wait
Sanders supporters are supposed to get all excited and hopeful while knowing and accepting that Clinton will win in the end? Isn't that a pretty anti-democratic way of thinking? This kind of "be submissive to the Party and don't raise your voice" way of doing things is what killed democracy in Western countries
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
