| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mEatBucket
Sweden45 Posts
On September 16 2011 00:15 Kiarip wrote: because members of the democratic party are so much more intelligent right? Looking from the outside, yes republican voters seems to be alot dumber then democratic voters. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:14 Whitewing wrote: If you read the reasons why they oppose it, it has nothing to do with the bill itself for the most part, and those that oppose what the bill actually proposes don't understand it, according to the reasons presented. They just don't like it because Obama is unpopular right now, and they don't want to be associated with him because he's unpopular. God damn this shit. Most Republicans are complete assholes and idiots, and most Democrats are pansies, pussies, and backstabbing pricks. It is truly a depressing time for American politics. I have pretty right-wing views, but even so I definitely felt a lot of hope and excitement when Obama was elected. I think almost everyone did. Not many people feel it anymore.  | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:22 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, I read the article. The differing reasons of why democrats and republicans don't like Obama's jobs bill aren't really important important. The bill's not going anywhere anyway. No one -- not even a democrat -- has submitted it to Congress for a vote. There are too many things in the bill that are complete unacceptable to republicans. Obama knows this, yet he isn't even willing to attempt to negotiate or compromise with Republicans -- only stating "PASS THIS BILL NOW!" It's kinda hard to do that if no one supports the bill. Oh, the point I was making is that it's actually not a bad bill, and if it fails, blaming Obama wouldn't be the right thing. You are right in that it won't pass, it has no support. I was just pointing out that the reason democrats don't support it has actually nothing to do with the bill being a bad bill. Fuck politics man. George Washington is rolling in his grave right now at this shit. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:51 Kiarip wrote: zero sum games are better than negative sum games Bad being better than worse is a lousy argument for supporting it. And a number of people here still don't agree at all with your economic position, so repeating your position over and over again isn't going to convince them. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
This is an exemplary demonstration of the short-termism and free-market worship that so plagues the US. Bullshit and circular reasoning all the way down. Trickle down works? Oh, it does, if you conveniently ignore the the concentrations of wealth and power at the top that is relentlessly abused to further accelerate the siphoning of said things to those who already have far more than they can possibly use. Elaborate + examples please. You don't get to pick one person, then assert that everyone else is like that person when other people have presented evidence that regardless of which person you pick, the point is that exec compensation has skyrocketed without clear increase in their value generated. Either the exec of 30 years ago was grossly underpaid, or today's execs are grossly overpaid. Pick one. That's how good your vaunted free labour market is at paying people what they're worth- pretty damned bad at it when the fox is guarding the henhouse. I find this unconvincing as an indictment of the free-market system. Rather, I see it as proof that it worked as intended. Executives were overpaid during a period when money appeared free. Then the game was up, so to speak, and many companies and executives paid for it. The economy is weak because the market does not fail to punish mistakes, whether honest or not. And whether it is businesses or government doing it. Goldman may generate stupendous amounts of money, but the point given and not answered was that the money they obtain is divorced from the value to society that they generate. What someone is paid is not commensurate with the value to society that they contribute. Scarcities, power and information asymmetries, market irrationalities and inefficiencies all can and have been exploited on a grand scale to siphon off wealth that was not equal to value generated. Your argument boils down to: If they're paid that much because they're worth that much. If you question their value generated, see the first sentence. "Divorced," interesting word to use. What do you mean? Economics utterly fails at pricing many things, one of them is knowledge. If you had to pay royalties to every person who contributed knowledge that led to the treatment of a disease, well, let's just say that you might as well forget about affording any kind of treatment. Basic science cannot be priced correctly by the free market. Basic research is the lifeblood of innovation, it's what gives engineers their tools, and its what keeps a first world economy competitive against third world labour prices. Cannibalizing talent to play games of ownership instead of generating de novo value is essentially killing the goose for the golden eggs, you get the ones its laid, the one it was about to lay, and then you're done. Finished. Kaput. You seem to be mixing two different things together in the middle of this paragraph. (Never mind that the first sentence is a kind of big assertion.) It is very true that the technological basis of the economy has been born in no small part from direct government or government-subsidized basic research, no doubt about that. But I don't understand how a [i]financial[i] crisis has connection to "cannibalizing talent" and "basic research." It seems you're just vehemently denouncing capitalism and coherence be somewhat damned. But sure, keep telling yourself that the best use of human intelligence is to play zero sum games of wealth, that ultrafast trading algorithms that execute trades in microseconds can spin threads of pure gold, and that you can keep driving the best and the brightest into what amounts to modern alchemy without consequence. Keep telling yourself that these yawning chasms of income inequality simply reflect some innate gulf of awesome that less than 1% of the population possesses, ignore the oceans of wasted human potential because these people caught a bad break (they really shouldn't have chosen to be born poor). Again, a lot of things jumbled up together. I don't think there is some kind of overwhelming feeling in this country or any country that "zero-sum games of wealth" are the highest achievement of an individual or society. Or that "the best and brightest" have overwhelmingly devoted themselves to the intricacies of making money from money, denying the country or the world talent in other areas. Or that there are oceans of "wasted human potential" because Bank of America and Goldman Sachs expanded greatly in the last decade before the crash. The situation is a lot more complex than you make it seem. And a number of people here still don't agree at all with your economic position, so repeating your position over and over again isn't going to convince them. Some streets are only one way but this one is definitely two. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:56 Whitewing wrote: Bad being better than worse is a lousy argument for supporting it. And a number of people here still don't agree at all with your economic position, so repeating your position over and over again isn't going to convince them. I think the typical voter looks at the issue like this: 1. Obama said that we had to spend trillions of dollars on "stimulus" to help the economy recover from the recession 2. We spent trillions of dollars, but the economy still sucks and the recovery that Obama predicted hasn't happened 3. Now Obama wants to spend another 500 billion dollars that we don't have on more "stimulus" projects So why would anyone expect things to turn out differently this time? The majority of voters now feel that borrowing more money to try to stimulate the economy some more is a bad bet that the country can't afford to make. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
I posted some numbers/examples during the last pages, starting on page 90. I find this unconvincing as an indictment of the free-market system. Rather, I see it as proof that it worked as intended. Executives were overpaid during a period when money appeared free. Then the game was up, so to speak, and many companies and executives paid for it. The economy is weak because the market does not fail to punish mistakes, whether honest or not. And whether it is businesses or government doing it. Are you aware that even though society overall had to pay heavily for the financial crisis, wealth concentration stayed basically the same (as far as I know it is even more skewed in favour of the wealthy, but I'd have to look up the numbers again)? I'm just trying to take your perspective, but don't understand how you can argue that the market "works as intended" when the ones who were responsible for the financial crises didn't pay for their mistakes (at least too much) while the average citizien had to shoulder the debt and save those companies/individuals? I know I'm painting a bit of a black and white picture, because 'exec" people where fired, got their pays lowered or their companies went bankrupt as well. But overall the socially weak and mid class had and will have to suffer quite a bit more. Edit: Ok thought about it a bit, I get your position if your opinion is that the free market is not intended to be good for society in general - or just can't be // just isn't. In this case don't bother to answer, that'd be a pretty pragmatic view on free market. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph Multiple graphs/charts showing the wealth disparity in our nation, and how it has grown in the last 30-40 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/34-signs-that-point-to-a-rapidly-shrinking-american-middle-class-2011-8# and http://www.businessinsider.com/34-signs-that-point-to-a-rapidly-shrinking-american-middle-class-2011-8#only-42-of-all-jobs-in-the-us-are-middle-income-jobs-1 Numbers, charts, etc, depicting how the middle class is (rapidly) shrinking. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts The average American worker is putting in more hours than ever, (and far more than other first-world nations), yet are being paid less and less, and losing benefits. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph Examining taxes by income bracket. You cannot judge the economy on GDP and nothing else. As a *nation* yes, the USA has more wealth than we did 50 years ago. However that profit has gone EXCLUSIVELY to the ultra-rich. Sure the country overall has more money, but the average American has been getting screwed over for years. How do you want us to pride ourselves on progress? Do we look at the standards of living and quality of life for the people? Or shall we instead merely look at the bottom profit line? Some of you seem to be arguing that the system is making money, thus it works and is good for everyone. I mean some of you are seriously arguing that we should not only lower/abolish minimum wage, but that people should be *happy* to be working for such pitiful wages, and that their labor might not be worth any more. It just strikes me as such a disconnect. Screw the workers, profit is king! I'd like to think that we could all care a little more about the quality of life of our citizens, and not merely how much money we can make. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:10 Haemonculus wrote: You cannot judge the economy on GDP and nothing else. As a *nation* yes, the USA has more wealth than we did 50 years ago. However that profit has gone EXCLUSIVELY to the ultra-rich. Sure the country overall has more money, but the average American has been getting screwed over for years. How do you want us to pride ourselves on progress? Do we look at the standards of living and quality of life for the people? Or shall we instead merely look at the bottom profit line? Some of you seem to be arguing that the system is making money, thus it works and is good for everyone. I mean some of you are seriously arguing that we should not only lower/abolish minimum wage, but that people should be *happy* to be working for such pitiful wages, and that their labor might not be worth any more. It just strikes me as such a disconnect. Screw the workers, profit is king! I'd like to think that we could all care a little more about the quality of life of our citizens, and not merely how much money we can make. I think most people agree with you that we want a good quality of life for citizens. The question is, how do we get there? There are two basic approaches: 1. Raise taxes, use the money for more social programs, more welfare, and that way poor people will be okay and have a good chance of getting back into the workforce; or 2. Reduce taxes, encourage businesses to grow, reduce regulation, expand the economy, create more jobs Both these approaches hope to benefit everyone. It's just that people really disagree on which of these approaches -- or which combination of these approaches -- actually works. People who advocate for approach #2 aren't heartless; we just think that the "big government" approach doesn't work very well. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
So it is, that's why I've dropped the subject myself and stopped arguing it. I think most people agree with you that we want a good quality of life for citizens. The question is, how do we get there? There are two basic approaches: 1. Raise taxes, use the money for more social programs, more welfare, and that way poor people will be okay and have a good chance of getting back into the workforce; or 2. Reduce taxes, encourage businesses to grow, reduce regulation, expand the economy, create more jobs Both these approaches hope to benefit everyone. It's just that people really disagree on which of these approaches -- or which combination of these approaches -- actually works. People who advocate for approach #2 aren't heartless; we just think that the "big government" approach doesn't work very well. History (so far) suggests strongly that #1 is more likely to be successful, all things being equal, at least in America. #2 hasn't worked every time it has been tried. That's not to say it can't work, but it hasn't. I'd like to think we're capable of learning from history. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:36 ziggurat wrote: I think most people agree with you that we want a good quality of life for citizens. The question is, how do we get there? There are two basic approaches: 1. Raise taxes, use the money for more social programs, more welfare, and that way poor people will be okay and have a good chance of getting back into the workforce; or 2. Reduce taxes, encourage businesses to grow, reduce regulation, expand the economy, create more jobs Both these approaches hope to benefit everyone. It's just that people really disagree on which of these approaches -- or which combination of these approaches -- actually works. People who advocate for approach #2 aren't heartless; we just think that the "big government" approach doesn't work very well. Did you check out the links I posted? Take special note of any graph showing change over time. We've been trying option #2 for a long time now, and the results speak for themselves. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I posted some numbers/examples during the last pages, starting on page 90. Humor me. Are you aware that even though society overall had to pay heavily for the financial crisis, wealth concentration stayed basically the same (as far as I know it is even more skewed in favour of the wealthy, but I'd have to look up the numbers again)? That isn't relevant to what I said. No one would disagree that a recession is going to hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich. My point is that many of the people and companies responsible for the crash were ruined by it, as they deserved to be. I'm just trying to take your perspective, but don't understand how you can argue that the market "works as intended" when the ones who were responsible for the financial crises didn't pay for their mistakes (at least too much) while the average citizien had to shoulder the debt and save those companies/individuals? You can't just say "the rich are doing well so this means that they didn't pay for their mistakes." "The rich" were not responsible, some of them were. It's too simplistic, your way. I know I'm painting a bit of a black and white picture, because 'exec" people where fired, got their pays lowered or their companies went bankrupt as well. But overall the socially weak and mid class had and will have to suffer quite a bit more. So basically because some rich people fucked up and paid for it - which is still to simplistic - all rich people should suffer, and if they aren't then something is wrong. Edit: Ok thought about it a bit, I get your position if your opinion is that the free market is not intended to be good for society in general - or just can't be // just isn't. In this case don't bother to answer, that'd be a pretty pragmatic view on free market. No that's silly. The market is like any other human institution. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph Multiple graphs/charts showing the wealth disparity in our nation, and how it has grown in the last 30-40 years. Wealth disparity is boring and irrelevant agitprop, standards of living are not. Are the standards of living displaying a glaring disparity when it comes to necessities? Everything else is just extraneous consumerism after all... right? http://www.businessinsider.com/34-signs-that-point-to-a-rapidly-shrinking-american-middle-class-2011-8# and http://www.businessinsider.com/34-signs-that-point-to-a-rapidly-shrinking-american-middle-class-2011-8#only-42-of-all-jobs-in-the-us-are-middle-income-jobs-1 Numbers, charts, etc, depicting how the middle class is (rapidly) shrinking. There are lots of reasons for this and most of them have to do with other countries rising up, which I assume you are not against... right? http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph Examining taxes by income bracket. I know it's ridiculous they should be lowered across the board. You cannot judge the economy on GDP and nothing else. As a *nation* yes, the USA has more wealth than we did 50 years ago. However that profit has gone EXCLUSIVELY to the ultra-rich. Sure the country overall has more money, but the average American has been getting screwed over for years. How do you want us to pride ourselves on progress? Do we look at the standards of living and quality of life for the people? Or shall we instead merely look at the bottom profit line? Funny, I'm telling you to look at the standard of living, you're telling me to look at the standard of living. So, just precisely what is the standard of living for the everyone not "ultra-rich:" http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty ![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart1600px.ashx?w=600&h=586&as=1) ![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1) I don't know if people do studies of the middle class' access to amenities, they probably do, but I think we can safely assume that they are better off than the poor, being middle-class and all. Some of you seem to be arguing that the system is making money, thus it works and is good for everyone. I mean some of you are seriously arguing that we should not only lower/abolish minimum wage, but that people should be *happy* to be working for such pitiful wages, and that their labor might not be worth any more. It just strikes me as such a disconnect. Screw the workers, profit is king! I'd like to think that we could all care a little more about the quality of life of our citizens, and not merely how much money we can make. Most people remain at a minimum wage job not very long. There's a reason it's the stereotypical "teenage" job. Of course in a recession upward mobility is hampered in general, which is not good. Also abolishing the minimum wage would be a great way to get people who don't even have the job skills required for a minimum wage job (these people are overwhelmingly poor and black) to actually get some employment and get some job skills to hopefully get better jobs in the future. History (so far) suggests strongly that #1 is more likely to be successful, all things being equal, at least in America. When? And please don't say the New Deal, the infrastructure programs were great but the rest was pretty garbage. #2 hasn't worked every time it has been tried. That's not to say it can't work, but it hasn't. I'd like to think we're capable of learning from history. Well, it worked in 1921-1922, the only time it has been tried. And a mix of number 1 and number 2 more heavily weighted on the side of number 2 in 1981-1983 worked. So, you're wrong? Did you check out the links I posted? Take special note of any graph showing change over time. We've been trying option #2 for a long time now, and the results speak for themselves. lolwut | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Just a data point to consider. Edit: Wow, the projected US ranking for 2030 (which is probably a little hocus-pocus, but I can't imagine it's completely without some thorough backing) is pretty bad. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Interestingly, the USA has traditionally done quite poorly (relatively speaking) on the HDI reports, with the exception of 2010 where it did quite well (as long as you exclude inequality from your analysis). 4th in 2010, behind Norway, Australia, and New Zealand without counting inequality, 12th if you do. It has tended to hang out around 10th in other years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Just a data point to consider. It is interesting, but I'd rather know why you think it is than just knowing you do  Edit: Wow, the projected US ranking for 2030 (which is probably a little hocus-pocus, but I can't imagine it's completely without some thorough backing) is pretty bad. Well I think it's pretty laughable, for example who knew in let's say 2002 that the market was going to crash in 2008? If you released a report with projections then about now, you'd probably feel pretty embarrassed about your conclusions. And projecting forward to 2030, that's a bit of a stretch. That's 19 years away, pretty much a whole generation. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
I really have no horse in this race. I'm just suggesting a decent data point, depending upon whether you take average income, health, and education to be exhaustively the human goods that can evaluate a country, or whether inequality can be included. It is obviously important to the debate at hand. Apparently, the folks who produce the HDI aren't convinced the inequality is adequately represented by the other three variables, so have included it in a version of their report. Edit: Also, I think it suggests that although absolute quality of life may well have risen for everyone in the last fifty years, it's not clear that's a good-faith marker. It seems to me that the more useful marker would be a relative quality of life, which the HDI is one attempt to index. Edit 2 (sorry!): On absolute quality of life: absolute quality of life tends to rise over time basically no matter what, barring large-scale disaster. Pointing out that the poor have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago is thus not exceedingly useful, it seems to me. Edit 3 (UGH MUST STOP READING THIS AND THINKING): For example, it seems disingenuous to include a refrigerator in 2010 as an 'amenity'. Though it's not strictly necessary for continued survival, neither is electricity and running water - it's extraordinarily helpful. | ||
Falling
Canada11378 Posts
Until I graduated, I was working a Parks branch job. Thirty years ago, my dad worked the same job in the summer. We made the same wage. (It was union then and it's private contractor now.)I can't emphasize the difference in the cost of living, tuition, plus inflation in that thirty years. But while my dad could pay his way through uni, I went into debt. This has happened across the board. high paying pulp mill jobs are gone, the pulp mill workers wind up working at the Park for low wages, kicking out uni students that were hoping to get jobs. A couple decades ago, one could actually make a living working at a grocery store, now it's a minimum wage, which you can make a living if you work for 2-3 stores because no-one will pay you full time so the company can avoid paying benefits. There is some job creation, but you can't live off them. But I don't see why abolishing minimum wage would allow companies to hire more. See a cut in minimum wage cuts into the spending power of a very large portion of the population that you're hoping that will participate in the consumer economy. So the poor will cut down to the bare essentials of food (or use the foodbanks) and shelter. And they'll continue to wear their old clothes, pass around hand-me-downs, drive old clunkers to the ground, forgo any sort of media entertainment, etc, etc. People on minimum wage are the most likely to spend their increased discretionary income on local businesses rather than dumping it overseas. I suspect you'd end up with a large labour force that can't even afford the to buy what the very product they sell or manufacture- like a third world country. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On September 16 2011 05:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: You can't just say "the rich are doing well so this means that they didn't pay for their mistakes."´ "The rich" were not responsible, some of them were. It's too simplistic, your way. Then you can't say they did pay for their mistakes either. As I said I'm painting black and white², but so is your proposition that "they" were punished by the market. We have individuals/companies who were, we have companies/individuals who weren't. All the same, the system itself didn't change, it didn't correct it's mistakes - the same problems it had before still apply. That's why I find the notion that the market actually "works as intended" problematic - it collapsed, nothing more and nothing less. It didn't lead to any (non-govermental) corrections of the system "free market". And I get that it's problematic to mix up the causes of the financial crisis with the rich<->rest wealth dispartiy, buts you who started this in the first place  [²Yeah there's a scenario where my statement is completly wrong, namely the scenario in which the individuals who are 'rich' were exchanged by former 'not-richs', but we all know that's not what happened.] So basically because some rich people fucked up and paid for it - which is still to simplistic - all rich people should suffer, and if they aren't then something is wrong. If the root of the problem is the wealth disparity between rich <-> rest (which is debateable, though that doesn't matter atm since you agreed to this assumption by explaining that the market punished this as error) yes, all rich should "suffer". Since they all got too much in the first place and the market should correct this error. Though "suffer" is a quite strong expression for getting only 500 times the income of an average citizen instead of 1000 times . | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 16 2011 05:13 Haemonculus wrote: Did you check out the links I posted? Take special note of any graph showing change over time. We've been trying option #2 for a long time now, and the results speak for themselves. well that's certainly subjective. I feel like we've been trying option #1. | ||
|
jace32
33 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
