|
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 July 03 2018 22:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:So Scott Pruitt at EPA has apparently been carefully scrubbing meetings with industry representatives from his public calendar. Wonder if this will be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finally pushing him out? I'm doubtful; he's proved remarkably resistant compared to the other scumlords that got forced out of the cabinet. The whistleblower is testifying before Congress, though, so something might come of it.
Narrator: It was the tip of the iceberg.
He is just a shill for the robber barons he serves. His plan is to destroy as much of the EPA as possible while lining his pockets.
|
On July 03 2018 22:36 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here. I don't think it's a luxury that's at hand, but I do think it might end up being the reality of change. The nature of the Trump disaster is unfortunately one that erodes and damages the institutions by which left wing change can be brought about, so while Trump might be 'good' in the sense he mobilises upper middle class liberals, the damage he is wreaking to American political structures - when compared to, for example, the fairly minimal direct damage an economic collapse would have on political structures - makes any political response to the problems those on the left want to solve harder and harder.
I'll be on board with this view after the voter participation game has been exhausted. Given the margins currently at play, truly motivating people to show up and vote is still a viable option that doesn't require drastic structural changes. And though it's only a relatively small event all things considered, I think Ocasio-Cortez' victory can be replicated elsewhere and if that were to happen, the legislative game could change dramatically.
|
|
|
There has been a lot of focus on Ocasio-Cortez’s political leanings as a reason for her victory. But that sort of glosses over the fact that she was an amazing candidate. She has really effective media skills, conveys an earnest desire to do good things and is able to levy attacks on democratic establishment without pushing away people that have been loyal to that establishment. She crafted her message for the district she was running in. Her politics are aspirational without promising people the moon and stars.
I think her politics are great, but just being more left leaning that the establishment would not have been sufficient for her to win. I want more people like her to win, so I hope there is a more critical review how she did it than just “she was left of the establishment democrats”.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:22 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You genuinely aren't able to follow it and I'm not upset about it.
Like I said originally, I support a FJG but distrust our elected officials to enact something like that. I confronted the myth that minimum wage drives job losses. There's no real world evidential support for that (beyond some marginal differences). The underlying position being the same one that created the minimum wage that if it does cause them to go out of business they don't deserve to exist. You can disagree if you want.
If you believe this to be the case. Why wouldn't we simply raise minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour, would this not solve our problems? And why do you not trust our elected officials, but do trust Chavez/Maduro? Because $100 is far beyond a living wage and would be a stupid idea based on a complete lack of understanding of why we have minimum wage in the first place. Because we assassinate people who genuinely believe what Chavez was advocating (whether you believe he did it or not). Because USA has attempted to assassinate people who believe what Chavez was advocating you trust him to govern and implement policy? I don't understand the logic? The USA has also tried to assassinate Right wing dictators does this make them more trustworthy? (what I'm trying to say is America trying to assassinate someone does not make them more or less trustworthy, you would hope that it would make them less but sadly history shows otherwise in some cases) So if not 100 then how about 25? The issue with minimum wage is that the number doesn't matter. What matters is the take home amount compared to cost of living and the opportunity for people gain those jobs. The reason 100 wouldn't work is not because it far beyond a living wage, it wouldn't be far beyond in a very short period of time. Inflation would take over and it would be the same or worse then before, Cost of living would go way up, and there would be way less jobs. You can't simply adjust one lever and not impact the other levers. This is why people are looking into other ways of getting money to the working poor. No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand. I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before. just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years. That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go. And as for you thinking Im some how right wing in this regard the plan i suggested means taking money away from the government instead of business owners. I would then make up this government shortfall with a small raise to the higher tax brackets and high profit businesses. This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses.
So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view?
|
Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:18 JimmiC wrote:
I mean millions loved Stallin too, in fact over 100 people died at his funeral trying to get close to the casket. Perhaps we should talk about what a great leader and person he was for a while.
We could, but we'd be pretty far afield from US politics until Marxism is really inside the US Overton window. I missed this gem when you ninja edited early which is too bad it could have saved me a lot of effort. But since I have been accused of not understanding your arguments. Do you think stallin was a good leader? Do you think America would be better off with him and his government rather then the current system?
Not gonna lie. I’m kinda enjoying your exposure of the thread’s Bolshevism.
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Because $100 is far beyond a living wage and would be a stupid idea based on a complete lack of understanding of why we have minimum wage in the first place.
Because we assassinate people who genuinely believe what Chavez was advocating (whether you believe he did it or not). Because USA has attempted to assassinate people who believe what Chavez was advocating you trust him to govern and implement policy? I don't understand the logic? The USA has also tried to assassinate Right wing dictators does this make them more trustworthy? (what I'm trying to say is America trying to assassinate someone does not make them more or less trustworthy, you would hope that it would make them less but sadly history shows otherwise in some cases) So if not 100 then how about 25? The issue with minimum wage is that the number doesn't matter. What matters is the take home amount compared to cost of living and the opportunity for people gain those jobs. The reason 100 wouldn't work is not because it far beyond a living wage, it wouldn't be far beyond in a very short period of time. Inflation would take over and it would be the same or worse then before, Cost of living would go way up, and there would be way less jobs. You can't simply adjust one lever and not impact the other levers. This is why people are looking into other ways of getting money to the working poor. No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand. I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before. just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years. That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go. And as for you thinking Im some how right wing in this regard the plan i suggested means taking money away from the government instead of business owners. I would then make up this government shortfall with a small raise to the higher tax brackets and high profit businesses. This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you.
It appears you closed the circle (I think?).
Hard to tell where you settled in that response?
|
On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:22 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You genuinely aren't able to follow it and I'm not upset about it.
Like I said originally, I support a FJG but distrust our elected officials to enact something like that. I confronted the myth that minimum wage drives job losses. There's no real world evidential support for that (beyond some marginal differences). The underlying position being the same one that created the minimum wage that if it does cause them to go out of business they don't deserve to exist. You can disagree if you want.
If you believe this to be the case. Why wouldn't we simply raise minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour, would this not solve our problems? And why do you not trust our elected officials, but do trust Chavez/Maduro? Because $100 is far beyond a living wage and would be a stupid idea based on a complete lack of understanding of why we have minimum wage in the first place. Because we assassinate people who genuinely believe what Chavez was advocating (whether you believe he did it or not). Because USA has attempted to assassinate people who believe what Chavez was advocating you trust him to govern and implement policy? I don't understand the logic? The USA has also tried to assassinate Right wing dictators does this make them more trustworthy? (what I'm trying to say is America trying to assassinate someone does not make them more or less trustworthy, you would hope that it would make them less but sadly history shows otherwise in some cases) So if not 100 then how about 25? The issue with minimum wage is that the number doesn't matter. What matters is the take home amount compared to cost of living and the opportunity for people gain those jobs. The reason 100 wouldn't work is not because it far beyond a living wage, it wouldn't be far beyond in a very short period of time. Inflation would take over and it would be the same or worse then before, Cost of living would go way up, and there would be way less jobs. You can't simply adjust one lever and not impact the other levers. This is why people are looking into other ways of getting money to the working poor. No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand. I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before. just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years. That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go. And as for you thinking Im some how right wing in this regard the plan i suggested means taking money away from the government instead of business owners. I would then make up this government shortfall with a small raise to the higher tax brackets and high profit businesses. This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses.
You're both a bit off. Non-profits are businesses that still have expenses and revenue streams and seek to turn a profit. It's just a matter of how that profit is spent, which is put back into more charitable purposes rather than going back into paying dividends to the people running the organization.
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand.
I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before.
just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years.
That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go.
[quote]
This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions.
Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair.
Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully?
As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda.
It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them.
This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree.
You need to turn a profit just to stay afloat. A non-profit or a not-for-profit will need to do the same, else need outside capital just to maintain a current service level.
Non-profits and not-for-profits will still manage P&L's for this reason. It's just less of a mission though still a priority.
|
On July 03 2018 22:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 22:36 kollin wrote:On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here. I don't think it's a luxury that's at hand, but I do think it might end up being the reality of change. The nature of the Trump disaster is unfortunately one that erodes and damages the institutions by which left wing change can be brought about, so while Trump might be 'good' in the sense he mobilises upper middle class liberals, the damage he is wreaking to American political structures - when compared to, for example, the fairly minimal direct damage an economic collapse would have on political structures - makes any political response to the problems those on the left want to solve harder and harder. I'll be on board with this view after the voter participation game has been exhausted. Given the margins currently at play, truly motivating people to show up and vote is still a viable option that doesn't require drastic structural changes. And though it's only a relatively small event all things considered, I think Ocasio-Cortez' victory can be replicated elsewhere and if that were to happen, the legislative game could change dramatically.
Absolutely turnout is the name of the game, I think that's the clear lesson to be learned from both the 2017 UK election and the 2016 US selection. I just think the viability of any left wing programme is made harder by Trump, not because he represents a shift of the Overton window away from such policy, but because he is damaging the fabric of American democracy significantly. I think it's too early to measure the extent of this damage though.
|
On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is what I was responding to:
[quote]
I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly.
You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before.
As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you.
My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever.
I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on.
If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess of spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position.
It appears that isn't yours though so no problem.
On July 04 2018 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 17:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is what I was responding to:
[quote]
I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly.
You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before.
As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that. Non-profit organizations? Non profit organizations are not businesses. So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. You need to turn a profit just to stay afloat. A non-profit or a not-for-profit will need to do the same, else need outside capital just to maintain a current service level. Non-profits and not-for-profits will still manage P&L's for this reason. It's just less of a mission though still a priority.
I think this clears up what I was getting at. My mistake if I misinterpreted what Jimmi meant. I figured it was a given that any business would have to manage revenue and expenses and that they would need more revenue than expenses aka profit (or at least the same, but it's unrealistic to imagine them being exact and constant).
His saying NPO's weren't "businesses" is what led me to believe that he meant something else.
|
|
|
Trump knocks Harley-Davidson again, says administration working to bring other motorcycle companies to the US
President Donald Trump criticizes Harley-Davidson on social media, saying his administration is talking to other motorcycle companies.
“Now that Harley-Davidson is moving part of its operation out of the U.S., my Administration is working with other Motor Cycle companies who want to move into the U.S. Harley customers are not happy with their move - sales are down 7% in 2017. The U.S. is where the Action is!,” Trump says in a tweet.
www.cnbc.com
I can't help but read stories like this a think 'fascist' rather than 'capitalist'.
Edit:
On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. You need to turn a profit just to stay afloat. A non-profit or a not-for-profit will need to do the same, else need outside capital just to maintain a current service level. Non-profits and not-for-profits will still manage P&L's for this reason. It's just less of a mission though still a priority. I think this clears up what I was getting at. My mistake if I misinterpreted what Jimmi meant. I figured it was a given that any business would have to manage revenue and expenses and that they would need more revenue than expenses aka profit (or at least the same, but it's unrealistic to imagine them being exact and constant). His saying NPO's weren't "businesses" is what led me to believe that he meant something else.
OK! Terms like 'business' and 'corporation' and the like often have multiple definitions. It's a shit-show of meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
