US Politics Mega-thread - Page 372

On August 07 2013 08:55 kwizach wrote:

No, that argument was over Walmart low wages, as you can see by scrolling up the page.

The same definition you are using when you suggest prices would need to go up for wages to also go up.

On August 07 2013 08:56 KwarK wrote:

If you're going to use the American polarised meaning of liberal could you at least go "libruhl" so we know it's being used as a slur and has no bearing of actual Liberalism.

Governments, in theory, attempt to solve social problems because they are called upon to do so. For example when there is crime they are expected to put systems in place to stop the crime and uphold the social contract, such as police and prisons. These things are paid for by the people through taxation. Corporations can create negative social externalities knowing that these will be seen as the government's obligation to fix through general taxation, even if the overall cost of doing that is higher than if the corporation paid for it. After all, the corporation has no social responsibility, only a responsibility to its taxpayer, it isn't seeking an efficient solution to the problems of society, rather it seeks just to make money. The interests of a corporation are served by allowing the government to spend $2 fixing a problem that was created by the corporation saving $1 because that $2, or at least most of it, wasn't funded by their taxes.

Of course all corporations do this so actually it works out that they're fucking themselves and society over by doing it but that's game theory for you. The optimal solution for their shareholders is for everyone but them to act responsibly.

Anyway, because the government cannot simply pass the buck on the way corporations can they are forced to address the issue. This is, in effect, a subsidy. If all government aid were to stop on a given day the employees of Walmart would not continue to work there, it would not be worth it, they could not feed their families on the wage, afford daycare for their kids, afford healthcare, save money for their kid's education so they have a better future or any of the rest of it. Rather than choose to work at Walmart they'd choose to loot Walmart because their life is shit and Walmart would lose its government aid, the promise of a state enforced social contract. But even though Walmart has more to lose should that happen in social brinksmanship the government is the more responsible party, it blinks first, if someone has to pay it'll pay. The negative externalities of corporate practices are paid for by the general population.

On August 07 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

OK, I thought you were referring to the min wage argument in general.

Something would have to change for min wages to go up. Some combination of prices and business income - all of which have consequences.

I'm not going to argue over a $100/yr/employee pay hike.

WOLFEBORO, N.H. — Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped into the debate over the GOP's future Tuesday night, warning congressional Republicans against forcing a government shutdown in their quest to stop President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

Romney addressed more than 200 donors on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee at a fundraiser for the New Hampshire Republican Party, staged just four miles from the vacation home where he has spent much of the summer with his family. The event was closed to the media, but his office released his prepared remarks.

Romney, 66, warned congressional Republicans against letting emotions drive their decisions.

"I badly want Obamacare to go away, and stripping it of funds has appeal. But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government," Romney said in the first speech of its kind since his November election loss to Obama. "What would come next when soldiers aren't paid, when seniors fear for their Medicare and Social Security, and when the FBI is off duty?"

He continued: "I'm afraid that in the final analysis, Obamacare would get its funding, our party would suffer in the next elections, and the people of the nation would not be happy. I think there are better ways to remove Obamacare."

Romney did not criticize anyone by name, but he dismissed the very strategy employed by some of his party's biggest names – potential 2016 presidential candidates among them. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are urging Republicans to swear off voting for any year-end spending bill that includes money for the president's health care law. Parts of the federal government would shut down on Oct. 1 if Congress doesn't approve a short-term funding bill before then.

On August 07 2013 16:29 Danglars wrote:
The RINOs fight on. No hill is worth dying on. RINOs cave on immigration and ACA to pursue popular opinion and votes. The rhetoric of picking our battles wisely is mute coming from congressmen that pick no battles worth fighting. I advocate the use of every bit of the power of the purse in the house of Congress we hold to oppose bills like ACA that will harm the country in that way. I know my counterparts on the left do not shy away from using the courts, government agencies, and every trick in the book to enact their policies. I don't see a high road that leads anywhere but destruction in these political fights.

It's about time we had a partial government shutdown that isn't every Saturday or Sunday. I'd like a little temporary disorder in the course of stalling the permanent damage the mounting debt and the ACA's burdens will have. The rosy outlook on the health insurance industry and health care in general that the current Administration and Left have is a sham and I'd like brave men and women to stop it with the power they hold in Congress before more damage is dealt.

I applaud the few speaking out for defunding the ACA.

On August 07 2013 08:56 KwarK wrote:

If you're going to use the American polarised meaning of liberal could you at least go "libruhl" so we know it's being used as a slur and has no bearing of actual Liberalism.

Governments, in theory, attempt to solve social problems because they are called upon to do so. For example when there is crime they are expected to put systems in place to stop the crime and uphold the social contract, such as police and prisons. These things are paid for by the people through taxation. Corporations can create negative social externalities knowing that these will be seen as the government's obligation to fix through general taxation, even if the overall cost of doing that is higher than if the corporation paid for it. After all, the corporation has no social responsibility, only a responsibility to its shareholder, it isn't seeking an efficient solution to the problems of society, rather it seeks just to make money. The interests of a corporation are served by allowing the government to spend $2 fixing a problem that was created by the corporation saving $1 because that $2, or at least most of it, wasn't funded by their taxes.

Of course all corporations do this so actually it works out that they're fucking themselves and society over by doing it but that's game theory for you. The optimal solution for their shareholders is for everyone but them to act responsibly.

Anyway, because the government cannot simply pass the buck on the way corporations can they are forced to address the issue. This is, in effect, a subsidy. If all government aid were to stop on a given day the employees of Walmart would not continue to work there, it would not be worth it, they could not feed their families on the wage, afford daycare for their kids, afford healthcare, save money for their kid's education so they have a better future or any of the rest of it. Rather than choose to work at Walmart they'd choose to loot Walmart because their life is shit and Walmart would lose its government aid, the promise of a state enforced social contract. But even though Walmart has more to lose should that happen in social brinksmanship the government is the more responsible party, it blinks first, if someone has to pay it'll pay. The negative externalities of corporate practices are paid for by the general population.

On August 07 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

No, the negative externalities of poverty exist first. They aren't completely removed by the low wages, but they aren't created by the low wages either.

On August 07 2013 17:33 NovaTheFeared wrote:


In fact the poverty is partially ameliorated by the offer of wages. Companies are doing harm by not doing enough good? This is some twisted logic.

On August 07 2013 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:



As opposed to what? Slavery, Serfdom?

On August 07 2013 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Danglars does another great example of what I have been reiterating over and over again: that the Republican Party has been making the extreme elements of their party more mainstream and basically ostracizing the moderate parts of their party.

This is why Boehner has essentially lost control of his party in the house. It's why they decided not to figure out where to cut spending on a transportation bill and instead voting to get rid of Obamacare again.

This is at a time where republicans need to appeal to Hispanics in order to ever have another president. But theres a considerable number of racists and nativists in the party. And they actually gain a considerable voice, like Steve King claiming that immigrants are all drug mules. And I watched the strange conversation in this thread where people actually tried to defend him out of some insane partisan solidarity or something. And we see further how the crazies actually get a national stage.

On August 07 2013 17:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:


Slavery and serfdom both have independent moral reasons to object that are absent in the liberal capitalist system. Marxian exploitation of workers has been tread and retread in this topic and needs no further mention.

US becoming 'refiner to the world' as diesel demand grows
...
The U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum products just two years ago and is now the largest exporter in the world.

How much would you pay to make Goldman Sachs feel slightly uncomfortable?

The City of Oakland, California plans to dish out $226,378.


Oakland’s local council has been trying to ban Goldman ever since the investment bank refused to cancel a more than a decade-old interest rate swap agreement at zero cost a couple years ago. The swap, unsurprisingly, is one of many deals struck between banks and municipalities before the financial crisis and which have now turned massively unprofitable.

Or not. Because the maths here are interesting.

Oakland says it currently pays about $4m a year to Goldman to avoid the lump sum payment of $16m it would need to pay to terminate the swap (a deal which itself is of rather dubious origin). The city refinanced the floating-rate debt originally tied to the swap with fixed-rate bonds in 2008, basically rendering the swap deal pointless.

An analysis of the deal, undertaken by the BLX Group at the behest of the Oakland city council, found that the swap will end up generating net savings of $37.5m over the course of its lifetime. It is due to expire in 2021. ...

On August 07 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

OK, I thought you were referring to the min wage argument in general.

Something would have to change for min wages to go up. Some combination of prices and business income - all of which have consequences.

I'm not going to argue over a $100/yr/employee pay hike.

On August 08 2013 02:03 ZeaL. wrote:


I want to hear your opinion on this as I am not an economist/do not read economic academic journals.

What about the case of Costco vs Sam's Club? Same business model yet Costco pays their employees about 70% higher than what Sam's club pays theirs, and I have no concrete data on this but anecdotally Costco is much more likely to provide benefits/paid time off. Even with that extra expense, Costco's growth and profit stays higher than that of Sam's Club. Somehow, either through increased productivity, reduced turnover, or something Costco can pay more for their floor workers and still make more money.

Is this a case where Costco simply gets better employees by paying more and is non-generalizable to the minimum wage discussion? If the minimum wage was raised, could we expect higher productivity and a corresponding increase in low- skilled unemployment due to fewer workers needed for the same job?

And unrelated to the topic above, minimum wage can be seen as an attempt to reduce the number of working people reliant on welfare to survive. If the minimum wage increases truly just lead to increased unemployment, then the government is stuck with unemployment benefits. If the government wishes to reduce the cost of welfare to the low skilled population, while not having children homeless and starving in the streets, what, in your opinion, is the solution?

I'd say it's a safe bet to say looking back 20 -30 years from now the pride in the dysfunction of congress caused by the republican party will have shifted to shame.

Spending millions of dollars and hundreds of hours holding vote after vote (up to 40 separate times now I believe)to repeal/defund a law which was signed by the president who would have to sign such a repeal is the height of ridiculousness.

When future generations look at a Republican Congress and a senate minority who set record after record for most filibusters, and least amount accomplished, I sincerely doubt it will be with glowing recommendations.

When the #1 goal of your caucus is to make Obama a 1 term president and you measure your accomplishments by how much you're able to prevent the functioning of your own governing body, I must say you are lost.

I rest comfortably knowing those that would advocate a gov, shutdown for sake of preventing such a bill which was signed into law (years ago) from being funded or implemented will be added to the historic pile of those who resisted things like ending slavery, desegregation, women's right to vote, equal pay, etc...

When people look at what republicans have offered to care for people with pre-existing conditions, or for people floating just over the poverty line, etc... it's pretty clear all they have are complaints and ridiculously inane "solutions"

EDIT: (Other than the republican Ideas which ACA was formed with [which are a significant part of the bill {and what republicans have had major problems with}])

Danglars does another great example of what I have been reiterating over and over again: that the Republican Party has been making the extreme elements of their party more mainstream and basically ostracizing the moderate parts of their party.

This is why Boehner has essentially lost control of his party in the house. It's why they decided not to figure out where to cut spending on a transportation bill and instead voting to get rid of Obamacare again.

This is at a time where republicans need to appeal to Hispanics in order to ever have another president. But theres a considerable number of racists and nativists in the party. And they actually gain a considerable voice, like Steve King claiming that immigrants are all drug mules. And I watched the strange conversation in this thread where people actually tried to defend him out of some insane partisan solidarity or something. And we see further how the crazies actually get a national stage.