|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
|
|
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)
Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.
Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.
Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.
Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.
|
On January 13 2020 04:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. Of course the net worth carries more weight. Just look at how many ads Bloomberg and Steyer were able to run. And yes, it's discriminatory, but it's not surprising that it happens under neoliberalism.
Steyer pretty much bought his way onto the debate stage. He just dumped a bunch of ads in the states the other candidates aren't and brought his poll numbers up in those states.
+ Show Spoiler +The billionaire debate is a fitting one for the 2020-2020 page I suppose
|
Rest In Peace Sir Roger Scruton. Heard him speak once in person and had the pleasure of briefly meeting him. Big loss for the conservative movement.
His works on beauty in particular have impacted me immensely.
|
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.
He has zero chance of winning the democratic nomination, and if he decides to run in the general it will be just about openly to syphon votes from Sanders (he won't be running if it's not Sanders, maaaaybe Warren) and make sure Trump is reelected. There won't be any good light on him (outside of some media coverage, probably) and that's not how underdog stories go.
|
Bernie Sanders is getting the same type of support as Trump did in 2016, which should be a good sign for him. His supporters are the only ones with passion - similar to Trump in 2016 (and now). Foul play by the media and political establishment both hurt and helped them both, as it misguides the misinformed and energizes those who see through the unfairness at play.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think if Bernie is willing to abandon the "truce" with other nominees he could really leverage the energy surrounding his campaign
|
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.
Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.
By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.
|
On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw. Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance. By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.
Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes.
You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances.
I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system.
If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork.
As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw. Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance. By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism. Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes. You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances. I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system. If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork. As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.
|
On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.
I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters.
|
God I want Bernie to surprise take every single early state and rip his shirt in half while calling for Biden to surrender, not concede, but surrender
|
United States42276 Posts
On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw. Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance. By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism. Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes. You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances. I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system. If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork. As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.
There’s a lot of nonsense in this post. Equities are composed of real assets, their value is denominated in currency but not dependent upon it, in an inflationary environment equities hold their real value. Redistribution of wealth would result in money for working Joes, whether from lower taxes on them due to a more progressive tax code or simply through the government spending that money in their communities. Redistributing money into people’s pockets doesn’t increase the price of labour or goods because it doesn’t involve issuing new currency, the new demand from the newly enriched is taking the place of the demand of the rich whose wealth was redistributed. You’d see more labour going towards building affordable housing and less towards super yachts but you wouldn’t see hyperinflation.
I’m not going to get into the stuff on healthcare beyond saying you should read a basic intro to the US healthcare system rather than “guessing wildly”.
|
On January 13 2020 10:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw. Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance. By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism. Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes. You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances. I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system. If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork. As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison. There’s a lot of nonsense in this post. Equities are composed of real assets, their value is denominated in currency but not dependent upon it, in an inflationary environment equities hold their real value. Redistribution of wealth would result in money for working Joes, whether from lower taxes on them due to a more progressive tax code or simply through the government spending that money in their communities. Redistributing money into people’s pockets doesn’t increase the price of labour or goods because it doesn’t involve issuing new currency, the new demand from the newly enriched is taking the place of the demand of the rich whose wealth was redistributed. You’d see more labour going towards building affordable housing and less towards super yachts but you wouldn’t see hyperinflation. I’m not going to get into the stuff on healthcare beyond saying you should read a basic intro to the US healthcare system rather than “guessing wildly”.
I was talking of what an universal basic income would do, should have mentioned that. I believe it'd lead to inflation if based on deficit spending, and if you are going to tax the rich for it, they will try to avoid that through outsourcing and capital flight and the government would lose taxes needed to finance its deficit, so more deficit it is in both cases, except that one choice keeps their wealth in the country.
But since you're talking about progressive tax code or government spending, I doubt that working Joe would get his wages raised because of it, or that he'd earn enough for a change in taxation to matter, contrary to adjusting the percentage on bigger figures which would probs be a cause for grey hairs in wealthier people.
As for inflations' effect on equities, I use the Caracas stock exchange as example. Although I can't tell for sure if all of its development is due to inflation or what exactly led to it, it looks like the brunt of the effect came from that.
|
On January 13 2020 10:11 Mohdoo wrote:
God I want Bernie to surprise take every single early state and rip his shirt in half while calling for Biden to surrender, not concede, but surrender
tbf he's leading in polls in Iowa and NH now so that's the probable outcome. He's probably going to lose SC even with Biden flopping in the previous two contests but it should be a clear choice between Biden and Sanders by the end of super Tuesday.
Those that choose Biden at that point are just flat out selfish/wrong imo
|
On January 13 2020 08:56 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down. I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters. May happen in the opposite direction to what you may think with economies of scale and buying power.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 13 2020 23:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 08:56 Aquanim wrote:On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down. I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters. May happen in the opposite direction to what you may think with economies of scale and buying power.
Layers of bureaucracy do matter in terms of cost yes, there aren’t necessarily more layers for bigger populations it depends entirely on the structure.
Healthcare in the US has quite a few but they’re structural issues it’s not because a lot of people live there. The federal regulations, then state regulations and laws, then the commercial insurance industry and medical service providers.
Which is reflected in the rather inefficient spending we see in that sector compared to those in other countries of comparable development.
|
I'm saying that a large health system should see lower costs due to economies of scale and buying power.
|
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration.
|
On January 14 2020 00:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm saying that a large health system should see lower costs due to economies of scale and buying power.
It can also put anybody they are buying generics from into competition. It costs a pittance to set up a factory compared to getting price gouged when you are big enough. Especially if you co-finance it instead of running it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
