|
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. |
On April 12 2016 07:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 06:10 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2016 06:01 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2016 05:53 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2016 04:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:54 Acrofales wrote:On April 12 2016 04:47 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:46 Kipsate wrote:
Its more relevant because we are talking about America
what the actual fuck? And you're saying there isn't a large population block in america with xenophobic tendencies paired with a strong interest in removing limits to gun control while limiting the size of government in all things except for police and military spending who are interested in creating a uniform state where their values are more important than the values of others. Are you saying there isn't a group like that in the US? Are you actually trying to argue that if the US tendency were to adopt more socialist patterns they are more likely to be like Venezuela than like Sweden? I'm saying that we shouldn't automatically assume things will be fine just because an idea sounds good. I'm saying being vigilant, questioning, and cautious is safer than assuming things will automatically end one way and not another. The US is not Venezuela--but the US is not Sweden either. And we shouldn't assume we will end up as one or the other--since we will most likely end up with something different altogether. I don’t think anyone in the thread is going to disagree with on that subject. But constantly dwelling on the slippery slope fallacy is not a productive way to talk about the subject of socialism. All systems can be abused and lead to repression. Not trying to dwell, I just don't like it when experiences are considered invalid just because they go against what the preconceived conclusions are supposed to be. No one is declaring your experience invalid, but simply pointing out that their experience provides with a different perspective on the subject. For reference, you are claiming that our experience with the US and its culture are invalid due to your own preconceived conclusions. What example would you have to use for the US testing a socialist system on the greater economy because I don't see it--for the most part a US experience would be exploration of increased and decreased governmental control on various aspects of finance and banking practices in combination with variations in specialized tax reforms. But please, talk about the time the US attempted a whole scale socialist system. The great depression and the creation of social security? The creation of HUD and section 8 housing? The creation of the ACA? All of the socialist countries you know in the EU did not become that way in one massive, socialist movement. It was a slow process of creating and refining systems. None of those are economic reforms. Unless of course you believe in simply the act of creating a welfare state to be the core of socialism. Even the ACA is merely the formalization and regulation of a still very privatized industry. Its a first step, sure, but not something you would call a move towards socialism as much as it is a move towards a more strictly regulated capitalist system. And yes, I do recall the great depression's effects on america. Mass migration and an increased emphasis on corporate power over worker's rights as we became very protective of the factories and businesses that were available. For the most part, a lot of recent american history is a good argument against the socialist system if we were to look at it purely from a national output metric as opposed to to personal feelings metric. But no, when land reforms were made in my country, when my father's lands were seized in the name of the people, when you were as likely to be blackmailed by police as you would be by rebels. We found out really quickly what equality means. And when time passed and the people who were simply given resources by our government turned out to not have the training, experience, or knowledge of how to actually use the lands and the earth turned fallow and production dropped--things only got worse from there such that marshal had to be put in place just to keep the peace. Much like all countries that aspired to the socialist idea, we too thought it was a good plan. The people were excited, the lower class were excited--and people thought it would mean equality at last. It turned out to not be the case, it turned out were more excited about the idea than we were about wanting to hash out the details and consequences of those ideas. When my family moved here, it was with the idea in mind that we will not be taking those claims lightly ever again.
The act of creating a welfare state IS the core of socialism, particularly as modernly practiced. If it had a second main objective it would be heavy regulation of industries where the government can easily restrict competition (such as healthcare). This is a political calculation by socialists who understand its better to take over a sector slowly by regulation and taxation (like the proverbial boiled frog).
P.S. If you think US healthcare is "very privatized" I wonder what sectors you think are regulated...?
On April 12 2016 13:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Whats she suggesting, that female soccer players should be paid the same as the men despite the fact far fewer people watch womens sport? Who pays the difference? Pretty scary to think that she is the frontrunner in this race, she is all over the place.
The women are paid less for 2 reasons, and 2 alone:
1) They signed their deal several years ago as opposed to more recently for the men. Live rights have increased significantly in recent years.
2) The men need to be compensated more for playing because of opportunity cost. Many of them can make hundreds of thousands to millions a year playing in the US or abroad respectively. There is a chance of injury in international play jeopardizing such a salary. I'm not aware of any US womens' soccer player who makes significantly more than a well paid trucker.
|
The pay of athletes is directly correlated to ad and ticket revenue of their team/league/stadium.
Almost no-one watches women's football except for the Olympics. Since then they are not gaining as many ad views or ticket sales, they are paid less.
The top discus athlete in the world is paid less than the top basketball player in the world for this exact reason. Is that inequality?
If this is still a problem for anyone, the last leg they have to stand on is to claim everyone is "XYZ adjective" for not caring enough about women's football and that they should care about women's football as much as men's which will equalize pay.
|
On April 12 2016 10:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Which, if you pay attention and care about what Hillary campaigns on and not whatever right-wing tabloid that gets upvoted to the top of r/politics by rabid Bernie supporters, you already knew and understood. In other words, it's not as groundbreaking as the Sanders interview and treads relatively old ground. Doesn't drastically affect the race besides highlight the pre-existing contrast that Sanders inadvertently made in his NYDN interview. there's a lot more in there that doesn't receive much coverage. leave it to a ny tabloid to do the job lol. im just here highlighting stuff for some people in this thread
any idea what she has in mind to fix this?
a while ago i was proposing changed inflation targets, but that has its problems aswell and does not guarantee long term thinking especially if the decision structures in companies are as bad as described. maybe force participation and actual decision influence of stakeholders that have a long term interest like the workers in form of a mandatory works council?
|
On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 08:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 04:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:09 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it. Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias. Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument. You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...) So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias. For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing. You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms. Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you. I don't mean that and I'm not pretending any of this. I usually mean what I write. You are putting in the same sentence political tendancies that are different and you've said that the only reason we're not putting them in the same sentence is because we don't care about non-white people experience. You are incorrect. We're not putting them in the same sentence because they don't belong in the same sentence. That is the entirety of what I'm saying. You have made zero argument as to why they are not the same things other than because you say so.
It's literally the first thing I did. I said that one was social democratic (i.e. center left) and the other was socialist in the classical definition (i.e. left to far left and possibly leading to communism). You act as if there was no far left parties in Europe, as if social democracy was the expression of all leftist ideals in Europe. It's not true. Tsipras is from a far left party. There is a far left party developping in Spain. As far as I know every european country has a minoritary far left party that is distinct from the social democratic one.
One of the things you've said is that you're scared of fundamentalists. In politics, that transcribes to being scared of extremes. A social democrat cannot be extreme. When he is, he stops being center left, and so by definition he stops being a social democrat and enters another definition that is further left. In order for your argument to make sense, you have to demonstrate that Bernie is further left than social democracy, which is a very different argument.
Under the guise of being scared of fundamentalism, which is a noble concern that I also share, you're actually arguing against restoring a moderate balance to the US. Internationally, the center is defined to be somewhere between Bernie and Hillary. Right now, in the US, the center is between Hillary and a republican. That is factually out of balance. You don't have to think that this imbalance is a problem as a general individual, but as someone who's claimed to be worried by extremism, you should think it is. You should be far more worried that a republican has a decent chance of getting elected every four years than you are by Bernie's rise or popularity. If that's not the case, by definition you aren't scared by extremes, you're just scared by the left.
|
On April 12 2016 07:21 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 07:17 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 06:52 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 12 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
Goddamn it. I volunteered to be a precinct committee person for the Colorado GOP. I can only imagine the shit that I'm going to catch from party members when I start talking with them. This deserves it's own blog I'm betting. Everyone is terribly curious about the process, you're going to need to spill some details at some point. I'm probably going to be instructed to say something along the lines of "The process is the process, and Cruz won fair and square." They better give me a good explanation for the #nevertrump tweet. Trump is unelectable and they don't want to lose the election is the explanation, whether they admit it or not Trump is perceived by some as unelectable* Trump is approaching a national 70% disapproval rating. Running him may cost the GOP the senate along with the white house. At this point the GOP may be trying to limit the damage to just a massive loss in the presidential election
Yes, for now. When (if?) nominated, I'm pretty sure Trump will soften his political ideas and go from "hate of the foreigners" to "hate of the democratic left who put the country in trouble", and it won't be an issue among non-Democratic voters because Trump is pretty good at that. And a Trump who still has the "anti-establishment", "Make America Great Again" and the "businessman vs politician" narratives going for him, without the "I'm a racist bigot" thing, is definitely electable.
|
On April 12 2016 17:27 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 07:21 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 07:17 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 06:52 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 12 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
Goddamn it. I volunteered to be a precinct committee person for the Colorado GOP. I can only imagine the shit that I'm going to catch from party members when I start talking with them. This deserves it's own blog I'm betting. Everyone is terribly curious about the process, you're going to need to spill some details at some point. I'm probably going to be instructed to say something along the lines of "The process is the process, and Cruz won fair and square." They better give me a good explanation for the #nevertrump tweet. Trump is unelectable and they don't want to lose the election is the explanation, whether they admit it or not Trump is perceived by some as unelectable* Trump is approaching a national 70% disapproval rating. Running him may cost the GOP the senate along with the white house. At this point the GOP may be trying to limit the damage to just a massive loss in the presidential election Yes, for now. When (if?) nominated, I'm pretty sure Trump will soften his political ideas and go from "hate of the foreigners" to "hate of the democratic left who put the country in trouble", and it won't be an issue among non-Democratic voters because Trump is pretty good at that. And a Trump who still has the "anti-establishment", "Make America Great Again" and the "businessman vs politician" narratives going for him, without the "I'm a racist bigot" thing, is definitely electable.
Yeah, not like there is video evidence of his racist bigot statements to broadcast on the airwaves 24/7.
And the 180 turn Romney did won him the election, so why cant Trump do the same....
|
On April 12 2016 17:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 17:27 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 07:21 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 07:17 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 06:52 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 12 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
Goddamn it. I volunteered to be a precinct committee person for the Colorado GOP. I can only imagine the shit that I'm going to catch from party members when I start talking with them. This deserves it's own blog I'm betting. Everyone is terribly curious about the process, you're going to need to spill some details at some point. I'm probably going to be instructed to say something along the lines of "The process is the process, and Cruz won fair and square." They better give me a good explanation for the #nevertrump tweet. Trump is unelectable and they don't want to lose the election is the explanation, whether they admit it or not Trump is perceived by some as unelectable* Trump is approaching a national 70% disapproval rating. Running him may cost the GOP the senate along with the white house. At this point the GOP may be trying to limit the damage to just a massive loss in the presidential election Yes, for now. When (if?) nominated, I'm pretty sure Trump will soften his political ideas and go from "hate of the foreigners" to "hate of the democratic left who put the country in trouble", and it won't be an issue among non-Democratic voters because Trump is pretty good at that. And a Trump who still has the "anti-establishment", "Make America Great Again" and the "businessman vs politician" narratives going for him, without the "I'm a racist bigot" thing, is definitely electable. Yeah, not like there is video evidence of his racist bigot statements to broadcast on the airwaves 24/7. And the 180 turn Romney did won him the election, so why cant Trump do the same....
Come on, Trump showed that he was more than able to deny/distort literally everything he said earlier, even with video evidence. And I really don't think Romney and Trump can be compared.
And I'm not saying that Trump would necessarily win the election, I'm saying that discounting him as "unelectable" is a very dangerous strategy, one that could imo lead, precisely, to him being elected.
|
Whatever you think of Trump you have to admit what happened in Colorado was a fucking disgrace.
|
On April 12 2016 18:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 17:36 Gorsameth wrote:On April 12 2016 17:27 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 07:21 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 07:17 OtherWorld wrote:On April 12 2016 06:52 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 12 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 12 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
Goddamn it. I volunteered to be a precinct committee person for the Colorado GOP. I can only imagine the shit that I'm going to catch from party members when I start talking with them. This deserves it's own blog I'm betting. Everyone is terribly curious about the process, you're going to need to spill some details at some point. I'm probably going to be instructed to say something along the lines of "The process is the process, and Cruz won fair and square." They better give me a good explanation for the #nevertrump tweet. Trump is unelectable and they don't want to lose the election is the explanation, whether they admit it or not Trump is perceived by some as unelectable* Trump is approaching a national 70% disapproval rating. Running him may cost the GOP the senate along with the white house. At this point the GOP may be trying to limit the damage to just a massive loss in the presidential election Yes, for now. When (if?) nominated, I'm pretty sure Trump will soften his political ideas and go from "hate of the foreigners" to "hate of the democratic left who put the country in trouble", and it won't be an issue among non-Democratic voters because Trump is pretty good at that. And a Trump who still has the "anti-establishment", "Make America Great Again" and the "businessman vs politician" narratives going for him, without the "I'm a racist bigot" thing, is definitely electable. Yeah, not like there is video evidence of his racist bigot statements to broadcast on the airwaves 24/7. And the 180 turn Romney did won him the election, so why cant Trump do the same.... Come on, Trump showed that he was more than able to deny/distort literally everything he said earlier, even with video evidence. And I really don't think Romney and Trump can be compared. And I'm not saying that Trump would necessarily win the election, I'm saying that discounting him as "unelectable" is a very dangerous strategy, one that could imo lead, precisely, to him being elected.
Where was it sown he is able to distort anything towards the majority of independents?
Being able to lie to the Republicans isn't going to help him if he gets the nomination. He needs to convince independents and that's not going to happen.
|
On April 12 2016 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Whatever you think of Trump you have to admit what happened in Colorado was a fucking disgrace.
It makes the Bernie communism garbage from earlier in this thread pretty funny.
People being afraid that voting in a socialist will lead to the breakdown of society while it is the Republicans who remove democracy when it no longer suits them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2016 16:10 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 10:26 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2016 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Which, if you pay attention and care about what Hillary campaigns on and not whatever right-wing tabloid that gets upvoted to the top of r/politics by rabid Bernie supporters, you already knew and understood. In other words, it's not as groundbreaking as the Sanders interview and treads relatively old ground. Doesn't drastically affect the race besides highlight the pre-existing contrast that Sanders inadvertently made in his NYDN interview. there's a lot more in there that doesn't receive much coverage. leave it to a ny tabloid to do the job lol. im just here highlighting stuff for some people in this thread any idea what she has in mind to fix this? a while ago i was proposing changed inflation targets, but that has its problems aswell and does not guarantee long term thinking especially if the decision structures in companies are as bad as described. maybe force participation and actual decision influence of stakeholders that have a long term interest like the workers in form of a mandatory works council? capital gains tax structure and debt tax advantage for cap structure are a major part of it but outside of the obvious poles of near term vs long term it is hard to cut the middle
she actually agrees with your worker representation idea but without detailed plans yet
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2016 13:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Whats she suggesting, that female soccer players should be paid the same as the men despite the fact far fewer people watch womens sport? Who pays the difference? Pretty scary to think that she is the frontrunner in this race, she is all over the place. facepalm wow ever heard of exceptions?
|
On April 12 2016 21:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 13:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Whats she suggesting, that female soccer players should be paid the same as the men despite the fact far fewer people watch womens sport? Who pays the difference? Pretty scary to think that she is the frontrunner in this race, she is all over the place. facepalm wow ever heard of exceptions?
Context?
|
On April 12 2016 20:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 16:10 puerk wrote:On April 12 2016 10:26 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2016 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Which, if you pay attention and care about what Hillary campaigns on and not whatever right-wing tabloid that gets upvoted to the top of r/politics by rabid Bernie supporters, you already knew and understood. In other words, it's not as groundbreaking as the Sanders interview and treads relatively old ground. Doesn't drastically affect the race besides highlight the pre-existing contrast that Sanders inadvertently made in his NYDN interview. there's a lot more in there that doesn't receive much coverage. leave it to a ny tabloid to do the job lol. im just here highlighting stuff for some people in this thread any idea what she has in mind to fix this? a while ago i was proposing changed inflation targets, but that has its problems aswell and does not guarantee long term thinking especially if the decision structures in companies are as bad as described. maybe force participation and actual decision influence of stakeholders that have a long term interest like the workers in form of a mandatory works council? capital gains tax structure and debt tax advantage for cap structure are a major part of it but outside of the obvious poles of near term vs long term it is hard to cut the middle she actually agrees with your worker representation idea but without detailed plans yet https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/
i like the direction of that plan, lets see what she can enact (as it seems inevetible that she will be the next president)
|
Atlanta Fed cut Q1 GDP estimate from 0.4 to 0.1.
Chance of US being in recession by November? Gotta be high considering how Brazil, China and Japan are travelling.Canada also weak.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
The Tennessee state senate on Monday passed a bill that would let counselors reject clients who are gay based on their religious beliefs, sending the legislation to Gov. Bill Haslam (R).
Senators agreed to a change made by the state House in the bill's language that would let therapists reject clients based on "sincerely held principles," as opposed to "sincerely held religious beliefs," according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
State Rep. Dan Howell (R) pushed the legislation in response to the American Counseling Association's decision to change its ethics code, telling counselors not to refer potential clients "based solely on the counselor's personally held values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors."
The American Counseling Association has condemned the Tennessee bill, calling it an "unwanted and unnecessary blow to the counseling profession and those who benefit from the services of a professional counselor." In a March statement, the group warned that the Tennessee bill would "essentially permit discrimination" and "would have a deleterious effect on countless people who seek mental and physical health services."
Last week, Haslam told reporters that he can "understand the reasoning" behind the bill, but said he would wait to make a determination on the final bill, according to The Tennessean.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2016 21:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Atlanta Fed cut Q1 GDP estimate from 0.4 to 0.1.
Chance of US being in recession by November? Gotta be high considering how Brazil, China and Japan are travelling.Canada also weak.
Probably just continued slow recovery. The world economy has been weak for a few years now, and the US has more or less stayed on top for the time being. I don't see anything that will make the US specifically worse off because of it.
Well he's not wrong that Bernie could certainly do more to forge political alliances. Maybe the Dem party would be much more friendly to him if he were (even if it is true that they weren't entirely fair to him so far).
|
On April 12 2016 23:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Tennessee state senate on Monday passed a bill that would let counselors reject clients who are gay based on their religious beliefs, sending the legislation to Gov. Bill Haslam (R).
Senators agreed to a change made by the state House in the bill's language that would let therapists reject clients based on "sincerely held principles," as opposed to "sincerely held religious beliefs," according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
State Rep. Dan Howell (R) pushed the legislation in response to the American Counseling Association's decision to change its ethics code, telling counselors not to refer potential clients "based solely on the counselor's personally held values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors."
The American Counseling Association has condemned the Tennessee bill, calling it an "unwanted and unnecessary blow to the counseling profession and those who benefit from the services of a professional counselor." In a March statement, the group warned that the Tennessee bill would "essentially permit discrimination" and "would have a deleterious effect on countless people who seek mental and physical health services."
Last week, Haslam told reporters that he can "understand the reasoning" behind the bill, but said he would wait to make a determination on the final bill, according to The Tennessean. Source
Its like these states don’t want anyone to do business with them? Of course it comes out of one of the states that is dependant on federal funding.
|
Georgia looking pretty good rn
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
