|
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 November 06 2016 00:33 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote:
RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars. To a negative effect though. It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family. America's debt doubled since DNC came in power. People ARE disgruntled at the system.
Debt now is literally less than what it was when Obama came into office, but you've shown us plenty of times that neither you nor the other trumpkins care about reality.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 06 2016 02:10 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 19:37 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 18:55 ragz_gt wrote:On November 05 2016 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2016 18:45 Tachion wrote:On November 05 2016 16:24 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote:
So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well. Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment. EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws. Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider. Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation... This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that. As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies. Yes, just damage the lives of countless citizens so you can have a "political shake-up". Never mind the incredible harm he would do to our economy, foreign policy, and social equality. Totally worth it just to give a big middle finger to The Man. Not to mention that your entire belief rests on the gloriously ignorant belief that Trump will actually change anything and isn't the very embodiment of sleazy corruption himself. Glorious ignorant belief? Why so agressive? Im sorry i dont support Hillary, im also sorry that you think less of me because of that. Ive said a lot of times here that both candidates are horse**** candidates but you just assume I think hes the best thing that ever happened and attack me because of that. You also speak like its a fact he would cause "incredible harm to your economy, social equallity and foreign policy", and obviously you undermine people who in your opinion fail to have the same smart/rational/logic/unmistakable tought process that made you reach your conclusions. Mind if i called those conclusions ignorant, like you did for mine? Well sorry once again, if you speak in absolutes to me like you do, I will share your opinion of me on your mental process. Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. I never said that you were a lesser person because of your opinion. I merely criticized your opinion. Deal with it. It's not some kind of complicated mystery as to what Trump's policies would do to the country. He's either explicitly laid out several things that he would do that would be complete and total disasters (cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare with no legitimate alternative, advocating for nuclear proliferation, etc.) or he has repeatedly shown that he simply has no solution whatsoever (ISIS, healthcare). He also explicitly incites hatred along racial, gender, and religious lines by ostracizing Muslims, kicking his own black supporters out of rallies, explicitly encouraging voter intimidation, and being the walking embodiment of sexism and male privilege. Let's not also forget that he has repeatedly and explicitly states that he would use his powers to conduct totalitarian practices, like jailing his political opponent or using his political power to silence journalists. In what world is this man anti-establishment? In what world is he the kind of candidate that will do anything whatsoever to improve the lives of the average person? He is the very establishment that tries to bribe politicians in the first place, and he explicitly espouses totalitarian practices that are the antithesis of everything that a democracy is supposed to be. His long list of actual court cases and demonstrably fraudulent business practices put the scandals of most any politician (including Clinton) to shame. So why is it that you can see (or at least sympathize with others that see) Trump as "anti-establishment" and the kind of candidate that would disrupt the political status quo enough to cause long-term positive change? What positive change do you actually see that would outweigh the incredible harm his (minimum) 4 years of policy would bring? Most of what you've written is just the media taking him out of context. You can't just read a bunch of headlines and zinger quotes followed by writing from a journalist obviously committed to a narrative. Nobody actually knows what his plans will accomplish, let alone the impact he will have. People said some of the same things about brexit, and what you fail to realize is that people voting trump generally don't care about the economy. Because they don't have a stake in it. They care about jobs, and trump has promised to bring them back through bullying, putting up tariffs and making outsourcing more expensive. This will obviously ruin the economy, but nobody saw a dime of that money anyhow, so why should they care? They don't know what 4 years of Trump will be, but they know what 4 years of Hillary will be. It's the kind of "I don't like you (the media, Hillary clinton, globalism), so now Trump is my friend" situation.
Sure they see that money. If trump ruins the economy the jobbs will disappear anyway and there will be zero foreign investment.
|
On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics.
could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about.
|
On November 06 2016 02:41 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 00:33 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote:
RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars. To a negative effect though. It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family. America's debt doubled since DNC came in power. People ARE disgruntled at the system. Debt now is literally less than what it was when Obama came into office, but you've shown us plenty of times that neither you nor the other trumpkins care about reality.
This is probably the most easily falsifiable thing if you take a minute to go to usdebtclock.org and watch the numbers going up instead of down.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 06 2016 02:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:41 hunts wrote:On November 06 2016 00:33 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote:
RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars. To a negative effect though. It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family. America's debt doubled since DNC came in power. People ARE disgruntled at the system. Debt now is literally less than what it was when Obama came into office, but you've shown us plenty of times that neither you nor the other trumpkins care about reality. This is probably the most easily falsifiable thing if you take a minute to go to usdebtclock.org and watch the numbers going up instead of down. + Show Spoiler +
I think he means the deficit.
Edit: I didn't even see that, why does your graph end in 2010?
|
On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about.
What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25.
And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 02:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:41 hunts wrote:On November 06 2016 00:33 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote:
RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars. To a negative effect though. It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family. America's debt doubled since DNC came in power. People ARE disgruntled at the system. Debt now is literally less than what it was when Obama came into office, but you've shown us plenty of times that neither you nor the other trumpkins care about reality. This is probably the most easily falsifiable thing if you take a minute to go to usdebtclock.org and watch the numbers going up instead of down. + Show Spoiler +
I think everyone agrees debt was high 2 years after the market crash as we payed out banks... 2010 (the year your graph points to) kind of is a non-standard year...
|
On November 06 2016 02:52 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about. What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25. And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more.
the numbers aren't anywhere near THAT extreme. it's already at about 90/25. I recommend reading up on the statistics, here's a wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
it's also important to remember the difference between wealth, and overall economic flows. in particular, a LOT of poor people have ZERO net wealth, but they're not utterly destitute living in horrific poverty. they live paycheck to paycheck, with no spare money.
Still a bad thing to be fixed of course. they may live on $40k/year or somesuch (for a family, as a rough guess)
|
Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush.
![[image loading]](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/10.15.15_0.jpg?itok=diS1IQOY)
|
On November 06 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about. What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25. And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more. the numbers aren't anywhere near THAT extreme. it's already at about 90/25. I recommend reading up on the statistics, here's a wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Yeah, okay, then make it 90/50. Doesn't really change anything about the core of what I said. More people involved = better balance. Hell, maybe that's not even necessary and we can just replace some of those lost jobs with government auditors or "economic enforcers" to act as the eyeballs on behalf of the people.
And while we're at it make it illegal to do that thing where you use computers to trade stock options which has the capability to completely run companies into the ground without regards for actual merits of the company. I'm really just trying to think of something that would help prevent instability from occurring. It seems utterly retarded to me that this kind of thing (eg. bubbles) just keeps repeating itself over and over again.
|
On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush.
oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016.
|
On November 06 2016 03:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about. What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25. And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more. the numbers aren't anywhere near THAT extreme. it's already at about 90/25. I recommend reading up on the statistics, here's a wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States Yeah, okay, then make it 90/50. Doesn't really change anything about the core of what I said. More people involved = better balance. Hell, maybe that's not even necessary and we can just replace some of those lost jobs with government auditors or "economic enforcers" to act as the eyeballs on behalf of the people. And while we're at it make it illegal to do that thing where you use computers to trade stock options which has the capability to completely run companies into the ground without regards for actual merits of the company.
I'd be happy to try to fix that, not sure if those particular numbers are achievable, but they might well be. But I'm not in charge. Moving to a more Scandinavian system would probably get close to that though, maybe. The main thing is to make sure you improve equality without making everyone poorer (some systems achieve high equality, but it's cause the system sucks and everyone's poor and the economy performs poorly).
Also, did you read that wiki article?
I don't recall any issue with stock options to just trash a company using computers.
|
One thing I often see posted about is how America has recovered from the 2008 crisis so well and yeah, that's true, but while the whole country took a pretty big hit most of the recovery has happened in the major cities and their surrounding counties. For more.
I feel like that's a point that gets overlooked a lot - if you're living in the more rural areas of the country, and there are a lot of them and they're sorta voting for Trump, things probably aren't looking too great for you. I didn't vote for him but as someone from a city whose major factories have either moved out of country, massively downsized their operations and even straight up closed, I can understand why a lot of people here hear what Trump's offering and think that's a better deal than what they've got now.
|
On November 06 2016 03:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 03:13 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about. What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25. And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more. the numbers aren't anywhere near THAT extreme. it's already at about 90/25. I recommend reading up on the statistics, here's a wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States Yeah, okay, then make it 90/50. Doesn't really change anything about the core of what I said. More people involved = better balance. Hell, maybe that's not even necessary and we can just replace some of those lost jobs with government auditors or "economic enforcers" to act as the eyeballs on behalf of the people. And while we're at it make it illegal to do that thing where you use computers to trade stock options which has the capability to completely run companies into the ground without regards for actual merits of the company. I'd be happy to try to fix that, not sure if those particular numbers are achievable, but they might well be. But I'm not in charge. Moving to a more Scandinavian system would probably get close to that though, maybe. The main thing is to make sure you improve equality without making everyone poorer (some systems achieve high equality, but it's cause the system sucks and everyone's poor and the economy performs poorly). Also, did you read that wiki article? I don't recall any issue with stock options to just trash a company using computers.
I think it's called short selling or something -- it had something to do with why they installed an internet cable between two economic hubs (New York and some other place) in order to get that extra millisecond of quicker response time so they could make more profits by quickly buying and selling stocks using a computer to quickly respond to minor changes in the price of stock, thereby amplifying the change. Sometimes it can completely destroy a company's stock resulting in catastrophe. In my opinion this sort of thing completely bypasses the purpose of the stock market and gives it a life of its own.
I see it as the same kind of problem with the banks, where regulations didn't prevent a particular kind of destructive activity and thus it was abused endlessly despite knowing that it could result in what happened in 2008. Seemingly, a lot of people who willingly involve themselves in this sort of thing are just far too greedy for there not to be very strict regulations on these matters.
|
On November 06 2016 03:32 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 03:21 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 03:13 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:18 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them. there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects. so we already ARE down that road. You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects. Well, how about some aggressive policies that would work towards making it 25% instead of 1%? I mean annihilation is an extreme word but I don't mean to imply leaving them penniless. When I look at 2008 I kind of reached a breaking point in my opinions on this whole situation regarding distribution of wealth, corporate influence on government, continuously repeated economic bubbles ("now this time, this time it's not a bubble and its real, so we don't have to worry and can continue to hoard the cash") and so forth. I just don't see the current (seemingly rather mild) approach working to create stability in the long term. Not that I have any clue on specific policies on getting there (there being 25% instead of 1%). I just think of it kind of like having more eyeballs on the matter regarding economics. If you have a bigger percentage of the population being in control of a nation's wealth, that would/could/should result in more sensible actions being taken on the whole. But maybe it's just a pipedream and the remaining 75% would be even worse off, lol. Maybe applying open source development ideologies isn't the best for economics. could you clarify what you mean by 25% instead of 1%? 25% instead of 1% of what? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and which goals you're trying to get to. and there's different answers depending on which you're talking about. What was the thing again? 99% of wealth is in control of 1% of the population? Make it so that 99% of wealth is controlled by 25% of the population. Or, if it was 90% being controlled by 1% make it 90/25. And before you start saying its impossible to achieve that, I believe people were saying for decades how it would be impossible to nationalize the banks, and when 2008 hit we did basically just that. I don't buy impossible any more. the numbers aren't anywhere near THAT extreme. it's already at about 90/25. I recommend reading up on the statistics, here's a wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States Yeah, okay, then make it 90/50. Doesn't really change anything about the core of what I said. More people involved = better balance. Hell, maybe that's not even necessary and we can just replace some of those lost jobs with government auditors or "economic enforcers" to act as the eyeballs on behalf of the people. And while we're at it make it illegal to do that thing where you use computers to trade stock options which has the capability to completely run companies into the ground without regards for actual merits of the company. I'd be happy to try to fix that, not sure if those particular numbers are achievable, but they might well be. But I'm not in charge. Moving to a more Scandinavian system would probably get close to that though, maybe. The main thing is to make sure you improve equality without making everyone poorer (some systems achieve high equality, but it's cause the system sucks and everyone's poor and the economy performs poorly). Also, did you read that wiki article? I don't recall any issue with stock options to just trash a company using computers. I think it's called short selling or something -- it had something to do with why they installed an internet cable between two economic hubs (New York and some other place) in order to get that extra millisecond of quicker response time so they could make more profits by quickly buying and selling stocks using a computer to quickly respond to minor changes in the price of stock, thereby amplifying the change. Sometimes it can completely destroy a company's stock resulting in catastrophe. In my opinion this sort of thing completely bypasses the purpose of the stock market and gives it a life of its own.
they do that to make a tiny bit of profit; it doesn't utterly destroy companies iirc, just maes a bit of money off the system in an unproductive way. and there are various regulations being looked at to try nad fix it.
In order to fix things, you need to understand how they work, I'm trying to provide understanding for you. I'm not the person in charge who can actually fix things.
and complaints that are incorrect don't help so much, which is why it's important to thoroughly and correctly understand the issues.
|
On November 06 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush. oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016.
My ass, what kind of casuistry is this? My graph stops at 2010 to hide that the national debt disappeared since then? I explicitly linked usdebtclock.org which shows the national debt now at nearly $20 trillion. This is higher than before. That means it has gone up (by trillions), which is assuredly the opposite of down.
You're looking at a graph of the deficit showing there's no surplus and not putting together that that means increasing debt?
|
i recommend reading up on what high frequency trading, its relationship with short selling and why its actually a good thing for the market even though some things do glitch up.
|
Short selling has not much to do with High frequency trading. Short selling refers to selling borrowed stock, betting on the decline of the stock, buying it back at a cheaper price, and after paying the lender back you have earned some money.
|
On November 06 2016 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Short selling has not much to do with High frequency trading. Short selling refers to selling borrowed stock, betting on the decline of the stock, buying it back at a cheaper price, and after paying the lender back you have earned some money.
well, it does in the sense that short selling is one of the strategies used by high frequency traders. but not really beyond that. if the algorithms that do a lot of the high frequency trading all get confused and massively short something then a stock can crater which has happened, but thats why we freeze trading sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/800px-USDebt.png)
![[image loading]](https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/alfredgraph.png?id=HDTGPDUSQ163N,HDTGPDUSQ163N&nsh=1&vintage_date=2016-06-01,2016-08-01&cosd=2005-01-01,2005-01-01&coed=2015-10-01,2016-01-01&type=image/png&chart_type=column&width=600&height=400)
