|
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 |
Danglars, you were asked in no uncertain terms to list countries with low inequality and literally wrote North Korea... If you didn't want or mean to include it in your argument, it doesn't need to be there.
On December 24 2020 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:On December 24 2020 04:08 Salazarz wrote:On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:On December 24 2020 01:30 Salazarz wrote:On December 23 2020 11:04 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 07:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:Danglars, a more precise question: Do you think the wealthy make too much compared to the poor in the US today? I know you said you didn't favor redistribution as a social good and that you don't want more taxes and that you don't want the government to be more involved in running the economy. But I feel like you kinda dodged the implied 'is inequality too high in the US today'- question.  I'm not overly interested in the inequality metric as a thing unto itself. The extreme, extreme poverty alongside wealth, think Brazilian estates next to slums (favelas), would be the time that I'd sign on to the metric. But the poor in the country do not necessarily do worse just because the top billionaires earned an extra 10% this year from next. Vice versa, a lot of poor countries have very little inequality, and misery is commonplace. I want to look at the state of the poor independent on how the rich are doing; how is access to health care, housing, food, jobs, education, and all that. If those metrics are gaining, but inequality also rises, I will celebrate for the improved quality of life for the poor. If the poor lose access to health care, cannot afford housing, have trouble finding food, are mostly unemployed, with terrible schools and colleges, but if inequality goes down across the board, I'm still saddened by the quality of life for the poor. It aint a zero-sum game and I think the debate on that basis distorts the real issues. I've seen you say this a lot so I'd like you to be a little bit more specific: what are the poor countries you have in mind where misery is commonplace, but there is very little inequality? Or alternatively, can you think of any statistically significant examples of places where inequality was increasing and at the same time quality of life was improving? Because using the US as the example, things get kind of funny. Inflation adjusted incomes for lower/middle-class Americans have been stagnant since late 60s-early 70s -- and that's also more or less the time when your income inequality started to grow exponentially. https://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequality-Chart-032713.jpghttps://motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/images/change-since-1979-600.gif Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/72nXSu6.png) All with less inequality, but maybe I'm less reticent as you to praise them for such a good job defeating inequality in their countries. Care to lend an admission to the existence of poor countries with rampant miseries, but who have this great measure everybody loves--INEQUALITY--at comparative lows? People here have a habit of dragging me from topic to topic, forgetting their last allegations and acting like they no longer care for them, and I've lost a little patience to indulging the game just to see where they end up. Incomes are a bad way of looking at things. It misses non-cash subsidies (food stamps, medicare, medicaid, EITC), household size disparities, and what the sum of all those buys. That's consumption. And the poor in America have moved from your 1960s-1970s norm of being unable to afford a TV, microwave, and air-conditioning, to all these things being commonplace among the poor. The US is a perfect example of the basic quality of life for the poor increasing while inequality increases as well. Your bad focus, indeed many on the left's bad focus, is that if billionaires become way more adept at investing and growing their money at the top, the poor necessarily are worse off. And hell if nobody out there can even bear to type that the math of inequality rewards poor countries for the measure of their uniformity in being poor, and growing health and welfare among the poor made a bad thing if the rich have the ability to outpace their gains! Not that Kwark's post needs much adding to on this topic, but do you seriously believe that North Korea is a good example of a country with low income inequality? Like, really? Or India, you know, that place where caste system is an actual thing, that's your example of a country with low inequality? TVs, microwaves, and air conditioning aren't good indicators of prosperity, either. Price to earning ratio for housing in the US increased somewhere between 400% and 600% since the 70s; median household debt increased around 300% -- despite interest rates being the lowest they've ever been in the last 20 years or so. The idea that billionaires becoming more adept at growing their money at the top doesn't affect the poor is ridiculous, by the way. There is a finite number of goods and services being produced in the world, and if a small group of people at the top increases their wealth disproportionately to the rest of the populace, this is directly reducing the purchasing power of those at the bottom. That's literally how fiat currencies work. You could try to argue that those at the top with disproportionately growing wealth also contribute to producing more stuff but... supply side economics are retarded, so I hope you're not going to go in there. Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make? Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ...
Well ninja'd.
|
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you.
|
You know the end is near when a person like trump starts throwing money at the common people.
He wants to leave on a high note i guess.
The pie is fixed in someway,it can grow and shrink but in the end the pie that is made in 1 year is a fixed amount. Every year we calculate how big the pie was that year (GDP)
|
This is a very weird time to be arguing that a push to reduce inequality implies that the pie is fixed.
Right now, as we speak, the pie is shrinking and asset prices are exploding.
We just have to wait for the tide to lift the last few boats and everything will be fine, right?
|
|
|
Norway28560 Posts
On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you.
What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then?
|
United States41995 Posts
On December 24 2020 07:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you. What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then?
I think in the example of potatoes that you literally grew, yes. But I think that that example is wholly inapplicable to the complex interconnected economy we live in. What you get and what you made are essentially unrelated and what you made is very difficult to even identify for most workers.
|
On December 24 2020 07:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 07:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you. What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then? I think in the example of potatoes that you literally grew, yes. But I think that that example is wholly inapplicable to the complex interconnected economy we live in. What you get and what you made are essentially unrelated and what you made is very difficult to even identify for most workers.
It wasn't an analogy to the US economy, it was merely a demonstration of why 'the pie is fixed' isn't a necessary premise for attacking inequality.
On December 24 2020 07:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you. What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then?
Sure I deserve them, they wouldn't exist without me. Though I don't think "deserve" is the gold standard for what we ought to do. Me deserving to sit on a throne of potatoes may be incompatible with the survival of the settlement, no matter how irrefutable my merit is.
|
United States41995 Posts
On December 24 2020 07:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 07:17 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2020 07:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you. What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then? I think in the example of potatoes that you literally grew, yes. But I think that that example is wholly inapplicable to the complex interconnected economy we live in. What you get and what you made are essentially unrelated and what you made is very difficult to even identify for most workers. It wasn't an analogy to the US economy, it was merely a demonstration of why 'the pie is fixed' isn't a necessary premise for attacking inequality.
I know, it was a good one. It succinctly explains that you can provide value while still being overcompensated at the expense of others. I agree with it.
|
On December 24 2020 07:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:36 Dan HH wrote:
Literally no one argued the pie is fixed, which is the only thing he seems willing to tackle. If we grow 50 extra potatoes this season and I take 20 of those while my personal improvements to irrigation only accounts for 10 of the excess potatoes, I'm stealing potatoes from you. What if your personal improvements actually amount to 20 though. Do you deserve all those 20 then?
“Deserve” is a troublesome term in discussing the ethics of communities. I make 70% of my household income. I would never say I deserve 70% of our spending money. I wouldn’t say I should fly first class while my wife is in coach. Being a member of a community means trying to do what is best for the community rather than focusing on individual greed. Similarly, is is unethical for billionaires to exist. Having 500 million dollars allows you to essentially live like a god. I would say even wealth that extreme is unethical when considering how many low income schools would greatly benefit from even 1 million dollars. When people let themselves maximize their own benefits, even when they are already comfortable, they are behaving unethically. Jesus didn’t heal people because they made enough money. He healed people because it was helpful and the right thing to do
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On December 24 2020 02:29 Zambrah wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Add all of that on top of one old white piece of shit potentially doing something positive and the other old white piece of shit going on to say, "yeah thats not happening anymore, you get no stimulus 'cause government spending" (should that happen would lead to to Trump going from Rank 99 on my Shittiest List up to 98. I cannot fathom how this was so controversial. + Show Spoiler +the other old white piece of shit going on to say, "yeah thats not happening anymore, you get no stimulus 'cause government spending" If Trump offers more coronavirus stimulus than Biden does than that earns him points in my damn book, this bar to clear for Biden is PATHETIC. Its NOTHING. Pass more stimulus. Don't be a deficit hawk in the middle of a fucking pandemic. Thats all he has to do to keep his ranking as 98/100 on my shit list. Its a low bar, its so low, hes literally better than Trump in my books right now and until he manages to fuck up stimulus checks. You may disagree, but I place a high value on these stimulus checks, if there are two people I hate and one of them does a good thing and the other actively stops it once he has the chance then I'm going to hold the one who stopped it in slightly more contempt. That doesnt mean I think Trump is good, it doesn't speak to how Biden may or may not have handled the pandemic, its exclusively saying "I hate these two people, if this one does a slight good and this one ignores a precedent of doing a slight good to actively not do a slight good then I hate the one that actively chose not to do a slight good a sliver more."
End of the day people have bills to pay.
Nothing Trump would do would ever win me round I don’t think, but I’d give credit on this one.
I mean part of this is parachuting me into being American and not from here, given problems in your system I would probably have been bankrupted at least once already when I had health problems and was hospitalised, if I was over there, probably twice over now accounting Covid differences.
Not sure why your previous post was so controversial
|
If Trump managed to steamroll mcconnell into 1000+ monthly payments I would give him applause, but even 2000 as a one time payment is going to do so little for most people. And as others have said, we wouldn't be hurting so bad economically if his stupid ass didn't make it a point of pride to downplay the virus at every turn, mock mask wearing, etc. The guy has done incalculable damage in so many ways that it's funny he would get goodwill now by spending a little tax money on the people it is collected from.
|
Trump has left for Florida. Does that mean he’s basically vetoing the covid bill?
|
In addition to the corrupt republicans and the war criminals Trump has now pardoned his own cronies Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, and also Jared Kushners dad. Corruption complete.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 24 2020 13:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump has left for Florida. Does that mean he’s basically vetoing the covid bill?
He's probably going to leave it down to the wire and make a decision on day 10, like he just did with the similarly veto-threatened NDAA (which he vetoed).
|
On December 24 2020 03:34 Erasme wrote:
Can't wait to see the housing market in the US without government interference in the next year. You think that mass evictions will make it go up or down ?
You can deregulate zoning laws and price controls while helping people pay rent or mortgage in a once in a lifetime pandemic. Restricting housing supply does nothing to help people pandemic or not.
On December 24 2020 03:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 03:24 RvB wrote:On December 24 2020 00:00 Erasme wrote:On December 23 2020 14:12 BerserkSword wrote:On December 23 2020 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes. You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars. I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans. And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility. So let me try to understand what you are saying: You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts. May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires? The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich. This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE. Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem. It takes a certain kind of people to look at the current US and say "we need less government intervention for the good of the people". The "market" has become such a weird entity that should somehow self regulate itself by magic. No, the "market" will not fix every problems if we let it run free. What a weird take. Why? Because it doesn't confirm your priors? The housing market, immigration and occupational licencing are all examples of where deregulation would be beneficial. That doesn't require the market to self regulate by magic (nice straw man). It only requires the market to more efficiently allocate capital than the current situation Please explain how professional licensing would do better with less regulation.
Professional licensing works as a barrier to entry to a profession which reduces labour supply and increases prices for consumers. In addition other workers have to compete for less jobs and get paid less than in a more competitive market. If you're interested here's an economist article which explains it pretty well: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/02/17/occupational-licensing-blunts-competition-and-boosts-inequality
|
On December 24 2020 15:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 03:34 Erasme wrote:
Can't wait to see the housing market in the US without government interference in the next year. You think that mass evictions will make it go up or down ? You can deregulate zoning laws and price controls while helping people pay rent or mortgage in a once in a lifetime pandemic. Restricting housing supply does nothing to help people pandemic or not. Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 03:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 24 2020 03:24 RvB wrote:On December 24 2020 00:00 Erasme wrote:On December 23 2020 14:12 BerserkSword wrote:On December 23 2020 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
"Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes. You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars. I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans. And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility. So let me try to understand what you are saying: You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts. May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires? The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich. This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE. Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem. It takes a certain kind of people to look at the current US and say "we need less government intervention for the good of the people". The "market" has become such a weird entity that should somehow self regulate itself by magic. No, the "market" will not fix every problems if we let it run free. What a weird take. Why? Because it doesn't confirm your priors? The housing market, immigration and occupational licencing are all examples of where deregulation would be beneficial. That doesn't require the market to self regulate by magic (nice straw man). It only requires the market to more efficiently allocate capital than the current situation Please explain how professional licensing would do better with less regulation. Professional licensing works as a barrier to entry to a profession which reduces labour supply and increases prices for consumers. In addition other workers have to compete for less jobs and get paid less than in a more competitive market. If you're interested here's an economist article which explains it pretty well: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/02/17/occupational-licensing-blunts-competition-and-boosts-inequality
I think professional licensing has its place (accreditation). The article uses doctors as an example, but I would argue doctors are both one of the most deserving professions of accreditation, and one that most requires professional licensing. There's a different level of knowledge, liability and responsibility between a nurse practitioner and a doctor.
For an engineer for example (what I'm most familiar with), professional engineer (P. Eng) is a designation that you can both sign off on and are responsible for your work. It means you can now be held liable for your work, or anything you sign off on, but is also required for many higher level engineering jobs because of it.
The importance, at least for engineers, is paved in bodies (Also for doctors too).
For something like a taxi medallion on the other hand, that is done for artificial scarcity, rather than accreditation purposes, I would agree with it simply being a barrier to entry. The fact that some random in his SUV driving for Uber part time on the weekends can provide equivalent(or even better in a lot of cases) service than a taxi kinda shows how ridiculous the system is.
|
United States41995 Posts
With audit there is a need for ongoing professional peer review to keep the profession honest. Auditors are selling their professional opinions to companies which intend to use those opinions to make representations to stakeholders about their financial position. There’s a built in conflict of interest, the company hires and pays the auditor but the auditor is really working for the stakeholders. So the profession limits signing audit opinions to licensed individuals who pay membership dues and part of that cost goes to reviewing the work of other auditors to ensure it meets professional standards. That’s as intended, if I want my signature to have value I need to know that some other lazy asshole isn’t handing them out to anyone who pays him.
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-homelessness-i/in-pandemic-americas-tent-cities-a-grim-future-grows-darker-idUSKBN28X19Y
This,is so depressing and sad. How can a society with so much wealth allow this to happen.
These people could get somewhat decent housing,improving their chances to find a job,at virtually no cost.
They could even be given supplies and with the help and supervision of contracters build shelters and homes for themselves in a similar way as in some 3rd world countries and foreign aid but its not happening. There is something very wrong with the system.
And these people they dont complain,americans are not quick to complain in general. They take it as it comes which is a remarkable feat. They accept their situation and they dont blame anyone. Their spirit is admirable but it could be so much better.
Survival of the fittest and fierce competition,creating a better and better economy and society in theory. But is it really working that way when more and more people cant cope and fall further and further behind?
The most sadening thought about this is that it doesnt have to be this way. There is so much wealth available,the pie is so big. Helping these people wouldnt take even a small crum of the pie. These people cant do it alone,with some help they could help themselves in making their life a little bit better. But its not happening for some reason.
|
On December 24 2020 17:11 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 15:22 RvB wrote:On December 24 2020 03:34 Erasme wrote:
Can't wait to see the housing market in the US without government interference in the next year. You think that mass evictions will make it go up or down ? You can deregulate zoning laws and price controls while helping people pay rent or mortgage in a once in a lifetime pandemic. Restricting housing supply does nothing to help people pandemic or not. On December 24 2020 03:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 24 2020 03:24 RvB wrote:On December 24 2020 00:00 Erasme wrote:On December 23 2020 14:12 BerserkSword wrote:On December 23 2020 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes. You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars. I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans. And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility. So let me try to understand what you are saying: You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts. May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires? The central banking we have now is the system. I can go further and say that government intervention, in general, in what should be a free market, also benefits the rich. This system isn't limited to Democrats, but the Democrats openly embrace it. For example the Fed's policy during the Obama administration was characterized by unprecedented "easy money policy" such as QE. Taxing the rich to address income inequality is addressing the result rather than the cause of the problem. It takes a certain kind of people to look at the current US and say "we need less government intervention for the good of the people". The "market" has become such a weird entity that should somehow self regulate itself by magic. No, the "market" will not fix every problems if we let it run free. What a weird take. Why? Because it doesn't confirm your priors? The housing market, immigration and occupational licencing are all examples of where deregulation would be beneficial. That doesn't require the market to self regulate by magic (nice straw man). It only requires the market to more efficiently allocate capital than the current situation Please explain how professional licensing would do better with less regulation. Professional licensing works as a barrier to entry to a profession which reduces labour supply and increases prices for consumers. In addition other workers have to compete for less jobs and get paid less than in a more competitive market. If you're interested here's an economist article which explains it pretty well: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/02/17/occupational-licensing-blunts-competition-and-boosts-inequality I think professional licensing has its place (accreditation). The article uses doctors as an example, but I would argue doctors are both one of the most deserving professions of accreditation, and one that most requires professional licensing. There's a different level of knowledge, liability and responsibility between a nurse practitioner and a doctor. For an engineer for example (what I'm most familiar with), professional engineer (P. Eng) is a designation that you can both sign off on and are responsible for your work. It means you can now be held liable for your work, or anything you sign off on, but is also required for many higher level engineering jobs because of it. The importance, at least for engineers, is paved in bodies (Also for doctors too). For something like a taxi medallion on the other hand, that is done for artificial scarcity, rather than accreditation purposes, I would agree with it simply being a barrier to entry. The fact that some random in his SUV driving for Uber part time on the weekends can provide equivalent(or even better in a lot of cases) service than a taxi kinda shows how ridiculous the system is.
Yes I agree with your general point. I'm not in favour of abolishing it completely. There are jobs where a license makes sense (it's hard to know which ones though) but even then it's worth it to look at what falls under the license and what can be done without one. Too little professionals to administer treatment has a cost in bodies as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
