EPTBut most of the people in America still likes capitalism.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3245
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
But most of the people in America still likes capitalism. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Because that's why we need companies. To improve our lives, not to make money. We need consumer goods and income and more importantly, a purpose in life and a corporate framework under which people unite to work towards their professional goals in life. The economy has been growing every since the crisis, but for almost everyone that growth only exists on paper. Doesn't mean anything. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: Consider this: Bernie Sanders is the best living example of honesty and consistency. I would challenge that statement. Sanders has grown in popularity by creating the persona of an honest candidate, fighting relentlessly against the political machine. I respect his background and his passion, but there is something very dishonest about his campaign. Government is about policy and process. Sanders has a rather bold, but generic vision of what he wants as outcomes in our country. There are two components to that vision. One, is that an outcome that people want, and two, how is he going to achieve that outcome? On both accounts he has not been forthright with "the people". In terms of outcomes, I think to many people it is a question of values and ideology about government and society. The details of that aside, his argument is that if he pulls enough people into his coalition of support, he can create a "revolution", and change American politics in order to truly serve the people. The problem with that is he is fighting hard to win majority support from democrats, let alone independents and republicans. He can not, nor can anyone in a democracy, just ignore half demands of the population. The fact of the matter is regardless of how anyone feels about it, most of the country does not support his agenda. More than half the democrats are at least skeptical, and he doesn't have the slightest chance with republicans. In this sense, his argument is very dishonest. He can not create a revolution. He will not garner enough support from the people to move the US towards his vision of the country. The demographics for that simply do not exist. All of the Cruz and Trump supporters exist, and he can't change that. To paint the picture otherwise, is misleading to all of his young supporters, who quite frankly don't know any better. That in my mind, falls into the same category of manufactured consent that we find anywhere else in politics. In terms of process, Bernie Sanders has been in government for decades. He knows process very well, yet he has not even spoken to how he will accomplish his goals with congress. The president can not just make all this stuff happen. Congress has to write the law, and the president has to sign it. How is Sanders going to convince a republican congress to write the laws supporting his presidency? Even with a democratic congress and democratic president, there were not enough votes for single payer health care. Bernie Sanders knows this to be true, and he doesn't even address it. Again, to me this is very dishonest. He is proposing policies he knows congress will never support, and he is refusing to address that fact. The honest conversation would be to outline who in congress will support his proposals, and who he will negotiate with, and what the probability of that being successful is. He has been in congress for decades, he knows this information. He is withholding it because he knows that it would sink his agenda and he would not win an election. These two factors in his campaign are very intentional. He is using smart campaign strategy and social media to garner support, not feasible policy positions. How is that different that any other form of political wrangling everyone so strongly opposes? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:05 Ghanburighan wrote: Just as a remark: an international thread of politics watchers is probably not the best forum for convincing anyone to vote for your candidate. Politics threads on the internet aren't a forum for convincing anyone of anything. It's just running commentary and jabs from two or three worldviews (with variations) that are inherently irreconcilable. The listening, laughing, poking, and discussing can still be fun, though. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Look at Obama. He really does want to close Gitmo. Yet he has not the power to do so. Doesn't mean we should elect a president that's part of the problem. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:01 oneofthem wrote: do you think the u.s. would turn into sweden if we just passed a 20 dollar minimum wage? policies require certain underlying fundamentals to work, and when these differ, such as the distribution of productivity in workers, the same policy would have vastly different effects. i don't relaly want to cite the lucas critique on anyone but it's relevant here No, the US clearly wouldn't turn into Sweden, and yes, policies in general require underlying foundations to work well. That doesn't change the fact that the idea of having things like "free" and widely accessible healthcare, free education, not giving too much power to institutions that the people have no control on (hello, banks), or helping poor people get out of their poverty, etc, are very much of this world, since they're applied to a lot of countries, and there's no reason why it couldn't be applied to the US with sufficient understanding of the specifics of that country. And if you think a potential President Sanders would suddenly create the Union of Socialist American States and make all his reforms on day 1, I guess you can also think that a potential President Trump would declare war on Russia and China on day 1. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
If you want to solve inequality, which is a serious problem that undermines the moral fiber of a society and hurts everyone including the rich, you need to find a real solution. Not minimum wage which is a token gesture at best, a condemnation to joblessness and a life of handouts for the least skilled workers at worst. Minimum wage is how skilled workers kick down at the lowest skilled and least productive workers, so they have also some to kick down at while society as a whole is kicking down at them. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote: you can read it for yourself. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ imposing control on compensation! higher reporting requirements! pretty horrifying stuff for wall street Ignore policy positions for a moment- Large banks and businesses value stability and consistency more than anything. You need stability to make investments and business decisions. Hillary's support from Wall street comes from the fact that she is (I would say her and Kasich), one of the only candidates not taking extreme positions on the government and our economy. Even with higher taxes and stricter regulations, the business community and financial industry knows what they will get with Hillary, and can make decisions accordingly. No one knows what will happen if we introduce a VAT tax(Cruz), eliminate long standing government departments (most of the republican field), shut down trade relationships and literally build walls around our country, or have "wall street bail out main street". Regardless of how you feel about those policies and your ideological position, those policies have unpredictable outcomes, and that is disadvantageous for investment planning on any level - government, private, large cap, small cap, etc... | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Minimum wage is a right wing labor union idea. It is bad for inequality. If you want to solve inequality, you need to find a real solution. Not minimum wage which is a token gesture at best, a condemnation to joblessness and a life of handouts for the least skilled workers at worst. Minimum wage is bad for inequality, we all agree on that. And isn't reducing inequalities the first thing the political world should have in mind? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:47 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Ignore policy positions for a moment- Large banks and businesses value stability and consistency more than anything. You need stability to make investments and business decisions. Hillary's support from Wall street comes from the fact that she is (I would say her and Kasich), one of the only candidates not taking extreme positions on the government and our economy. Even with higher taxes and stricter regulations, the business community and financial industry knows what they will get with Hillary, and can make decisions accordingly. No one knows what will happen if we introduce a VAT tax(Cruz), eliminate long standing government departments (most of the republican field), shut down trade relationships and literally build walls around our country, or have "wall street bail out main street" (which "we" profited off of...). Regardless of how you feel about those policies and your ideological position, those policies have unpredictable outcomes, and that is disadvantageous for investment planning on any level - government, private, large cap, small cap, etc... As someone who cleans up the legal messes for large banks, this is 100% incorrect. That is a myth and any bank will make some terrible, risky short term bets just to make share holders happy. The only reason banks used to value stability was because they were heavily regulated and were forced to operate in a specific fashion. Once that was removed, they function on a quarter to quarter thinking process. And none of them fear jail time because it simply won’t happen. And the sad part is that anyone who works in the industry knows this is true, but can do nothing about it. As Greenspan said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Banks are not to be trusted. They must be baby sat by the goverment to protect citizens from their stupidity. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Minimum wage is a right wing labor union idea. It is bad for reducing inequality. If you want to solve inequality, which is a serious problem that undermines the moral fiber of a society and hurts everyone including the rich, you need to find a real solution. Not minimum wage which is a token gesture at best, a condemnation to joblessness and a life of handouts for the least skilled workers at worst. Minimum wage is how skilled workers kick down at the lowest skilled and least productive workers, so they have also some to kick down at while society as a whole is kicking down at them. 1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare. 2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:39 OtherWorld wrote: No, the US clearly wouldn't turn into Sweden, and yes, policies in general require underlying foundations to work well. That doesn't change the fact that the idea of having things like "free" and widely accessible healthcare, free education, not giving too much power to institutions that the people have no control on (hello, banks), or helping poor people get out of their poverty, etc, are very much of this world, since they're applied to a lot of countries, and there's no reason why it couldn't be applied to the US with sufficient understanding of the specifics of that country. And if you think a potential President Sanders would suddenly create the Union of Socialist American States and make all his reforms on day 1, I guess you can also think that a potential President Trump would declare war on Russia and China on day 1. I think many progressives/ Democrats/whatever agree that wide or complete availability to these services is something very good if not a right. I can't speak for oneofthem, but I think Hillary has a better chance and a better plan to making progress towards those goals. With regards to universal healthcare, a focus on reducing pharma prices, reducing deductibles and increasing coverage and access to rural areas while pursuing state-level public options seems like a superior option to implementing single payer. Hillary is a real progressive. It may not come across in rhetoric, but it definitely does in substance. On March 10 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote: As someone who cleans up the legal messes for large banks, this is 100% incorrect. That is a myth and any bank will make some terrible, risky short term bets just to make share holder happy. The only reason banks used to value stability was because they were heavily regulated and were forced to operate in a specific fashion. Once that was removed, they function on a quarter to quarter thinking process. And none of them fear jail time because it simply won’t happen. And the sad part is that anyone who works in the industry knows this is true, but can do nothing about it. As Greenspan said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Banks are not to be trusted. They must be baby sat by the goverment to protect citizens from their stupidity. The short-term view in banks/ business is definitely one of the worst parts of capitalism and need to be regulated. However, it's not to say that it's impossible to regulate the banks if you talk to them. Pro-business has become a pejorative, kind of how compromise has become a dirty word (Hillary had a nice point about that). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
You think Donald Trump's competition would have learned by now. For months, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his Super PAC Right to Rise doggedly attacked Marco Rubio's flip flop on immigration. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker blasted Bush for not more fiercely admonishing the Iran nuclear deal. All the while, in the background, Republican primary enemy number one, Trump, was on the rise. But now, after it has grown impossible to deny Trump is the frontrunner and the New York real estate mogul is getting dangerously close to clinching the nomination, two of the GOP's best hopes for stopping Trump are entangled in a bitter civil war that could jeopardize the Stop Trump strategy laid out by former Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Months ago, candidates could hardly be blamed for dismissing Trump as a fluke or flash in the pan. They had their eye on knocking down competitors they assumed would actually have staying power. But now, the remaining candidates have witnessed Trumpmentum for months. They've stood on either side of Trump on the debate stage. Rubio's been labeled "little Marco." Cruz has been identified by Trump as a liar. Trump meanwhile uses his time on the debate stage, not to outline policy positions, but to brag about his poll numbers. Romney has argued that Rubio, Kasich and Cruz need to get together and unselfishly share the goal of denying Trump as many delegates as possible. "If the other candidates can find some common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election," Romney said before outlining a strategy forward. "Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I'd vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whoever has the best chance to beating Mr. Trump in a given state," Romney said. But instead of heeding that advice, both Rubio and Cruz are locked in caustic competition to prove they each have what it takes to challenge Trump in a one-on-one matchup. Instead of smoothing the path for a Rubio victory in the senator's home state of Florida, the pro-Cruz super PAC Keep the Promise I, planned to release a barrage of ads both in and out of the state attacking Rubio on everything from sugar subsidies to national security, Politico reported Monday. On Tuesday, Cruz announced that he would travel to Miami for a rally, a sign he's not about to follow Romney's script and cede Florida to Rubio. Source | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:55 oneofthem wrote: a general point about trade and progressives, effective taxation increasingly need an international aspect, and not just with corporate forms but individuals too. if you want to effectively tax the moneybag you would need some international framework on tax, because socialism in one country makes for flighty capital. then there is the attendant trade and investment effects of taxation, and you need buy-in from places that would normally stand to gain by lowering their standards and allow a short plank to expose the whole u.s. effort. there are a lot of loopholes and shell game in this, completely legal too. but if you are looking to change this, you would need international buy-ins. cant do so with trade wars The problem is that TTP is fucked beyond fixing. If you wanted to structure a trade deal around actual competition and benefit to workers (in your proposed lower prices consequentialism) you wouldn't have built in such strong legal protections for the big international corporate players or for IP monopolies. You seem to want to have it both ways: IP is good for Americans AND for the world and this is presumably based on future innovative incentives vanishing or something if IP was weakened, which is a problem of assumptions. You also say it will distribute tech and supply chains throughout non-China Pacific region, but what you really mean is safely spread capital to regions where it can continue to accumulate while perpetuating and metastazing its contradictions to the detriment of workers. We are on the path of capital and must remain so. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:39 OtherWorld wrote: No, the US clearly wouldn't turn into Sweden, and yes, policies in general require underlying foundations to work well. That doesn't change the fact that the idea of having things like "free" and widely accessible healthcare, free education, not giving too much power to institutions that the people have no control on (hello, banks), or helping poor people get out of their poverty, etc, are very much of this world, since they're applied to a lot of countries, and there's no reason why it couldn't be applied to the US with sufficient understanding of the specifics of that country. And if you think a potential President Sanders would suddenly create the Union of Socialist American States and make all his reforms on day 1, I guess you can also think that a potential President Trump would declare war on Russia and China on day 1. you are the one who framed this issue as the choice of policy implies choice of social state. policies. i would rather frame some of these as goals, more product rather than cause of social development. in any case how does your new nuanced understanding support sandernista at all? he is straight up arguing the policies will effect these transformations. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:32 Danglars wrote: Politics threads on the internet aren't a forum for convincing anyone of anything. It's just running commentary and jabs from two or three worldviews (with variations) that are inherently irreconcilable. The listening, laughing, poking, and discussing can still be fun, though. Exactly. This is a rolling fight where we refine arguments. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote: 1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare. 2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. Was reading article where the author was making an argument that the introduction to minimum wage actually hurt minority workers. Jobs that were once too low paying for white Americans, were now paying enough that the job market got flooded by white Americans because the pay was now acceptable in comparison to the work done. Just thought the article was interesting. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 03:59 IgnE wrote: well foreign capital investment is not really that specified enough. the good form integrates the local supplier metwork and has lots of positive spillover effects. there are purely extractive 'investment' but this doesnt describe the actually good investment and development in the region. do you really dispute the quality of life for the asian tigers 1940 vs 2010?The problem is that TTP is fucked beyond fixing. If you wanted to structure a trade deal around actual competition and benefit to workers (in your proposed lower prices consequentialism) you wouldn't have built in such strong legal protections for the big international corporate players or for IP monopolies. You seem to want to have it both ways: IP is good for Americans AND for the world and this is presumably based on future innovative incentives vanishing or something, which is a problem of assumptions. You also say it will distribute tech and supply chains throughout non-China Pacific region, but what you really mean is spread capital to regions where it can continue to accumulate while perpetuating and metastazing its contradictions to the detriment of workers. We are on the path of capital and must remain so. as far as tpp it is most probably too ip leaning particularly on copyrights and pharma stuff. industrial patents isnt that bad and it can really benefit developing countries to attract patent sensitive work so that they enjoy the spillover effects. the development of their own tech is important in overcoming the middle income trap and this is really not disputable. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Let's look at Mao'd leap forward if we want to consider 1940 china and now. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
