EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 270
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 08 2018 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: No that’s not the reasoning of supply side economics at all. The idea is, you lower taxes on a company, it will spend this cash to expend. Open a new branch, invest in R&D, increase the production, whatever. With its fresh cash from the tax relieve, your airline will open a new route, your coffeeshop a new branch, your internet startup hire a community manager it couldn’t afford, etc. That means, new jobs, which means more demand and you are in a virtuous circle. Again I think it doesn’t work, because according to companies themselves, their main obstacle today is low demand, which states should face by investing rather than lowering taxes and whatnot. Right now, companies have no reason to invest since no one will buy the extra shit they would make if they did, and so simply give a fuckton of money to their shareholders, increasing the already grotesque wealth gap, with no benefit for the economy. Now, that the GOP doesn’t sincerely care about any if that and use that inappropriate theory to reward a cast of donors, it’s self evident. They are in to redistribute money upward, period. Mine is stripped down to the core. The ultimate goal of those/that economic policy is to avoid legislating to increase the minimum wage and/or directly forcing companies to do stuff/government meddling in the market (by setting wages). The problem is, none of the details matter if all your expansion does is result in more staff you're not paying enough to live on. All the societal issues of poverty remain, just a company is slightly bigger and making even more money. Plenty of times that money does go into R & D and expansion. But the money still doesn't benefit everyone because companies ruthlessly push to pay staff the minimum amount possible wherever they can. See: some Walmart employees being on food stamps (I say some as I'm led to believe that the scandal a few years back was rather overblown?) despite the company being so rich the family could probably recreate Scrooge McDuck's gold vault. It's absolutely fantasy Capitalism, and I'm not actually so cynical that I think all the GOP are lying. I believe plenty of them earnestly believe trickle down is preferable to legislating/higher taxes. They just happen to be wrong, The key problem is the assumption that the worker will actually benefit from the lower taxes in any way unless the government pins companies down and forces them to do it. I mean, the last time a tax cut benefitted the workers was probably when Trump not only bribed companies into it but added additional pressure through twitter. And even then only a few beneficiaries seem to have done much. And as you and other posters are pointing out, good business is about cutting costs where you can and spending only where you must. It's not only logical but sensible for a company to use a sudden windfall to generate a slush fund rather than investing it, in case the markets turn on them. And there's also greed to remember, which also plays a factor. It's as fundamentally flawed as Communism, which likewise assumes humans won't act like humans and start being greedyselfish arseholes like many of us fundamentally are. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21525 Posts
Its selling people unsustainable dogshit and setting it up so other people will be blamed when for the consequence's they know will happen come around. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 08 2018 21:41 farvacola wrote: The number one thing a publicly traded company will do when receiving tax windfalls is buyback stock, which is, as Nebuchad points out, a very risk averse thing to do. Most companies who pay a dividend/ do buybacks or whatever already do so because they've done their budget and figured "well this is what we're going to spend on growing the business anyway". There is no real secret "if we had another hundred million dollars what would we do with it and who would we hire" plan, so when they get a big windfall they just turn around and give it to shareholders to make them happy (a one time bonus to employees is good PR too). It is also the shareholders' expectation that any sudden windfall will be returned to them in the form of a dividend/ buyback. Simply it is the most easy and most certain way to generate a return on equity. I kinda think we ought to slap a tax on companies who do that to create a hurdle to it - force them to decide if taking a haircut on that cash is really worth it, or if they could do more with it some other way. Triple taxation! | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
President Trump is heading up to Canada for the G-7 summit on Friday. The weather is expected to be mild, but he is likely to get a frosty reception from the other world leaders in the group. Ahead of Trump's arrival, French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted suggesting the international Group of Seven could issue a communique at the end of the summit that leaves out the United States. "The American President may not mind being isolated, but neither do we mind signing a 6 country agreement if need be," Macron wrote. The American President may not mind being isolated, but neither do we mind signing a 6 country agreement if need be. Because these 6 countries represent values, they represent an economic market which has the weight of history behind it and which is now a true international force https://t.co/UA86fcjozs — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 7, 2018 Not to be undone, Trump responded on Twitter saying that both Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "are charging the U.S. massive tariffs and create non-monetary barriers." Please tell Prime Minister Trudeau and President Macron that they are charging the U.S. massive tariffs and create non-monetary barriers. The EU trade surplus with the U.S. is $151 Billion, and Canada keeps our farmers and others out. Look forward to seeing them tomorrow. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2018 In a second tweet Thursday evening, Trump said Trudeau "is being so indignant, bringing up the relationship that the U.S. and Canada had over the many years and all sorts of other things..." Prime Minister Trudeau is being so indignant, bringing up the relationship that the U.S. and Canada had over the many years and all sorts of other things...but he doesn’t bring up the fact that they charge us up to 300% on dairy — hurting our Farmers, killing our Agriculture! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2018 Tensions between the U.S. and its allies have increased in recent weeks after a series of White House decisions have frustrated some of the United States' closest international partners. This is not the first time that relations have been strained, but the depth of the current disagreements may have lasting consequences. Source Apparently we will be leaving the party we started early because our president can’t control himself on twitter. Trump is currently less resilient that the average American family at Thanksgiving. The long term damage of his little hissy fits are going to be bad for Americans abroad. The EU is not going to forget this after getting burned so hard by Bush over Iraq. Why bother dealing with a country who’s legislature is useless when the president goes off the reservation? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On June 08 2018 23:03 Plansix wrote: Source Apparently we will be leaving the party we started early because our president can’t control himself on twitter. Trump is currently less resilient that the average American family at Thanksgiving. The long term damage of his little hissy fits are going to be bad for Americans abroad. The EU is not going to forget this after getting burned so hard by Bush over Iraq. Why bother dealing with a country who’s legislature is useless when the president goes off the reservation? Just to make the G6 + one orange thing even more interesting, Trump suggested Russia be reinvited. WaPo: Trump calls for Russia to be reinstated to G-7, threatens allies on trade From the article: QUEBEC CITY — President Trump on Friday said Russia should be readmitted to the Group of Seven leading economies, breaking with other world leaders who have insisted that Moscow remain ostracized following its 2014 annexation of Crimea. “Now, I love our country. I have been Russia’s worst nightmare … But with that being said, Russia should be in this meeting,” Trump said Friday as he left the White House. “It may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run. … They should let Russia back in.” Trump’s comments, made as he was departing for the annual G-7 summit in Canada, have the potential to further upend talks with other leaders here. U.S. intelligence officials believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and part of this year’s G-7 summit was supposed to focus on protecting democracies from foreign meddling. I know at this point the word "optics" is entirely meaningless, but bloody hell. Watching the fires raging across the US political landscape has been a serious distraction for me this year. It's slightly terrifying to consider I'll likely have to study there, and I'm not exactly living in a politically stable place myself. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
On June 08 2018 23:13 Plansix wrote: They liked Obama after the Bush administration. I think there was a sense that the Bush was a onetime thing and Americans had come to their senses. And I’m not sure that is going to happen a second time around. We will not be seen as a reliable partner going forward, since our congress is willing to put short term domestic gains over good relationships with foreign nations. Relationships that are supposed to last decades or even centuries. i think you're a prisoner of the moment. canada's relations with the USA have run hot and cold for many decades. in the 60s and 70s Pierre Trudeau was buddies with Castro shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis while the USA and Cuba were hated enemies. Trudeau flouted outwardly how much he was buddy//buddy with Castro. It was some pretty over the top stuff. in the 80s the Conservative Brian Mulroney said the conservative Ronald Reagan was " acting like a tin pot dictator" in a free trade dispute after the FTA had been established and the USA was breaking some rules. the softwood lumber thing... canada kept winning in that bilateral dispute resolution court and the USA kept on breaking the rules. i can cover Chretien's disputes with teh USA president du jour if you'd like as well. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The immigration judges are already saying the court cannot handle this many cases and they were given no warning of the increase. This seems like an effort to deprive the border crossers of due process and assure that no further crossings because we abused people who try to come to our country illegally. Edit: Jimmy, I am talking about the EU. Though I am sure Canada will make nice with us in some way. We are neighbors. The nations across the sea may look to protect themselves from the political whims of the American people. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Also, I hear Theresa May is meeting with Germany and France one and one, but not Trump. Even with Brexit she's decided cozying up to Merkel and Macron is more important. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 08 2018 22:20 Gorsameth wrote: I would argue the Trump tax cut doesn't even benefit workers since they will expire in under 10 years and turn into a tax increase to subsidize the company/rich tax cuts that won't expire. Its selling people unsustainable dogshit and setting it up so other people will be blamed when for the consequence's they know will happen come around. In other words it's Trump's real estate career? I actually agree that Russia should be reinvited to the G7. Russia is an extremely difficult nation to deal with. Simply not talking to them doesn't make them better to deal with. We've tried that with NK for an awful long time and they're still around and still making trouble. Russia's even more-r not going away, and even more-r going to make trouble. As hard as it is to do proper diplomatic work with Russia, the effort is going to have to be made sooner or later, for political and economic reasons. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 08 2018 22:20 Gorsameth wrote: I would argue the Trump tax cut doesn't even benefit workers since they will expire in under 10 years and turn into a tax increase to subsidize the company/rich tax cuts that won't expire. Its selling people unsustainable dogshit and setting it up so other people will be blamed when for the consequence's they know will happen come around. I tend to argue that they don't benefit workers now even; since it's financed with debt. It's just taking out a loan in the people's name and giving them the money now, and pretending it's a cut. giving someone $300 now, and a thousand dollar debt, isn't really giving them anything. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2018 23:50 iamthedave wrote: In other words it's Trump's real estate career? I actually agree that Russia should be reinvited to the G7. Russia is an extremely difficult nation to deal with. Simply not talking to them doesn't make them better to deal with. We've tried that with NK for an awful long time and they're still around and still making trouble. Russia's even more-r not going away, and even more-r going to make trouble. As hard as it is to do proper diplomatic work with Russia, the effort is going to have to be made sooner or later, for political and economic reasons. Like that, but with a longer tail: Medicare funds to run out in 2024 We are not collecting enough taxes to fund even elder care system we set up on the 1960s. All the nursing homes in the US are funding by this and won’t be replaced by some free market solution when it runs out. Trump has basically set up the political fight for his next election. But Americans don’t remember a world without Medicare, so they cannot contemplate the concept of it going bankrupt. And when people start talking about what it would look like, they are labeled as hysterical. The interesting part is that entitlements used to be the third rail of US politics. They were off limits, don’t even bother. Make them more efficient, but never talk about cutting them or defunding them. It was a political death sentence. But the big cultural change the conservatives have accomplished is making the discussion possible. The problem is that there is no discussion about what happens after entitlements like Medicare are cut. People don’t understand what they would lose because the service is mostly invisible. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 08 2018 21:36 Nebuchad wrote: You're lowering taxes. People and businesses end up with more money. They're not going to look at this thing that was too risky to do before and think "Oh, now that I have more money, I can take more risks!" That's a gambler's position, not a CEO's position. They're still going to do things that they were planning to do anyway. They might do it faster if they're a developing company, but they won't do it more; and supply side doesn't target developing companies, it targets everyone and - as a result of doing that - benefits the businesses that already have enough to do whatever they want more than the others, which ultimately hurts the developing companies by reinforcing the giants. The bolded is not an unreasonable position in itself. People who invest (and who are smart) play where they think they have spotted opportunities (i.e. where they think the percentages are in their favor), but they know that nothing is 100%, and also play not to get wiped out. Think of how a poker player keeps a bank roll, which determines what tables he plays at. If he's operating with unlimited cash, and he has a justified belief he's the best poker player in the world, he should be playing at the table with the highest blinds/buy-in he can find. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On June 09 2018 00:16 IgnE wrote: The bolded is not an unreasonable position in itself. People who invest (and who are smart) play where they think they have spotted opportunities (i.e. where they think the percentages are in their favor), but they know that nothing is 100%, and also play not to get wiped out. Think of how a poker player keeps a bank roll, which determines what tables he plays at. If he's operating with unlimited cash, and he has a justified belief he's the best poker player in the world, he should be playing at the table with the highest blinds/buy-in he can find. If he has a justified belief that he's the best poker player in the world, he is playing at the highest blinds/buy-in he can find, no matter what his bankroll is; staking is a thing. You'll find the best players in the world playing in Macau right now, with the biggest pot lost by Tom Dwan two or three years ago at 30M$ american iirc. I can guarantee you that Tom Dwan's bankroll doesn't allow him to lose 30M$ american. But that's okay, because his belief that he's making good investments in general when he plays poker is justified. For the rest of us, we aren't the best players in the world, so playing at the highest stakes would be a bad decision; it'll still be a bad decision when we have more money. Bankroll management is generally overplayed as a concept because people tend to make mistakes when they have bad bankroll management: either playing too tight if the stakes are too high, or playing too loose if the stakes are too low. The correct play stays the same though. I will say that poker isn't a great comparison: doing the correct thing in poker often causes you to put money in in spots where you're less than 50% to win money, and it's pretty rare that you play a big pot where you have over 70% chance of winning. In business your odds aren't that binary: you could do that thing that you believe has 60% chance of getting you money, but you could also do one of 17 other things. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On June 09 2018 02:01 IgnE wrote: Staking is just a form of bankroll management but thanks for pointing out that relatively unimportant detail. It's still someone's [two's three's] bankroll. In any case my point wasn't a broad comparison between poker and investment. It was confined to the proposition that smart people who make bets (investments, poker bets, whatever) play where they have odds and to not get wiped out, so that even if they lose a bet, they can continue to play. The problem with playing outside of your bankroll management is that you end up playing poorly, or worse than your typical level. It's not that you might get wiped out. Having the idea that you might get wiped out in your head while you're playing is the main reason why you're likely to play worse when playing outside of your bankroll level (most likely will lead you to play worse even if you're playing within your bankroll). If you're one of the best players and you get wiped out or close to wiped out, that doesn't really matter as much. It would be ridiculous for Isildur, after getting wiped out on that famous night, to start playing microstakes or something. His EV dictates that he should try and play higher, and that's what he does. | ||
| ||
