Page 23 of 204 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373123 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 4079

Thread: Economics Thread

  1. #441
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    If you mean pay, you are 100% unequivocally wrong. The data on this clear. If you wanted to be honest, you would simply state as such.

    But you're not interested in being honest. You want equal outcomes. You want socialism, despite it's 100% failure rate.

    we are back to my think tank can beat up your think tank ?

    If you read the sentence it says " gender inequality" you even posed the question !!!
    But thankfully you answered for me.

    I didn't specify pay or even mention pay. Never the less we disagree -
    There are other things than the garnering of wealth.
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  2. #442
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    What is the gender inequality you are referring to?

    Please cite your data in your response

  3. #443
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    I understand its a slippery slope but I really do believe that large corporate limits competition and therefore stifles capitalism.
    So do you want the government deciding a corp is too big and then splitting it?

  4. #444
    Making Atlanta Great Again!
    #MAGA!

    Promises MADE, Promises KEPT!
    The Chosen One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    School of Hard Cox
    Posts
    25,337
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,593
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,752
    Thanked in
    5,746 Posts
    Never thought I'd agree with thethe on some things.
    Forever Fredi


  5. #445
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    So do you want the government deciding a corp is too big and then splitting it?
    There is no other body that would be able to do it. My end goal is to have more privatepy owned smaller businesses.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  6. #446
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Will anyone go back and address the point as to how we can get china to play nice without using tariffs?

  7. #447
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Individual-1 View Post
    Never thought I'd agree with thethe on some things.
    I think youd be surprised as to the type of person I am.

  8. #448
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    What is the gender inequality you are referring to?

    Please cite your data in your response
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  9. #449
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    But this resulted in less revenue.

    Is there a reason that this chart ends in 2002? My guess would be because that doesn’t include the next round of tax cuts and the lowering of the ratio.

    There will be a time when the money runs out... it's already happening in high tax states like California, Illinois, NJ, New York. The pension obligations alone are killing them, let alone all of the unfunded liabilities

    Something will have to change... I'm guessing they will try to tax more... I'm guessing that won't work. Did you see California seriously propose a tax on texts? LOL
    Yeah, well, so you say. Sort of like the Paul-ite claims of impending hyperinflation that you used to repeat. Get back to me when it happens. Conservatives have been forecasting the death of California for as long as I can remember.

    Economic growth is what pulls people out of poverty. There's a reason the poverty rate globally has collapsed over the last 30 years... Growth is what makes people have jobs, make money, etc.

    Did you know there is a huge increase in suicide with each % of GDP decline?
    Speaking of suicide, a guy who jumps off a bridge, causes a huge car accident, then lives on for years in a vegetative state could generate a huge amount of economic activity. Litigation, ongoing medical care, etc. All economic activity is good, I guess.

    Mention of suicide rates seems kind of spurious in light of the fact that the suicide rate in the US is at a 30-year high and continuing to climb. I guess people don’t know that the economy is expanding.

    Your idea of equity seems to be make the rich less rich... not make poor and middle class richer.
    Hmm, well, I’d just as soon do both. At least I’d rather make the poor and middle class more stable, comfortable, and prosperous.

    By funneling money through a bureaucratic inefficient system? Wouldn't you think we'd be better off if more people relied on themselves rather than the government?
    Rely on themselves for what? To provide affordable health care or education? I’m not sure how that’s possible. An individual can’t do that. A collection of individuals can, and should. I’d rather NOT rely on slogans or cant, though.

    Higher taxes don't mean this... and I've outlines many times that our medical and student loan system is a direct result in subsidies rather than market competition. I thought Obamacare was supposed to solve all that? Oh, costs went up? You don't say.
    Obamacare was never going to deliver large long-term reductions in costs. The fact that it was grafted onto the existing system and provided no real price-negotiating power in any segment guaranteed this. The modest savings that were originally forecast were predicated on 50-state adoption of the Medicaid expansion, which did not happen in many states for ideological reasons. The trick you’re trying to pull here is conflating a half-assed market-based government intervention into a privatized system with something that actually offers meaningful power to affect costs. I’m not sure why you’re picking this as a battleground, though, because it’s long proven to be losing territory for you. Remember the conversation about Medicare For All when you insisted that I was wrong that the projection forecast cost savings, before you ultimately conceded that point? I can point to all the available study that shows such a mechanism to be cheaper and more efficient than the current system, and you have—as has been demonstrated repeatedly—nothing to underpin the assertion that a market-based system would be superior. You don’t like the funding mechanism for single-payer or MFA, sure, but you can’t rebut that it’s actually far more efficient than the current system. And, fwiw, that’s precisely what I mean when I say that I would trade the rich being slightly less rich for the poor and middle class being more stable and prosperous. That’s precisely the trade-off of MFA, while you’re left talking about a market-based solution that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, and never has.

    Well that is what happens today. The people decide it is OK to confiscate other people's money. The people decide it's OK to run trillion dollar deficits which is effectively stealing from people not even born yet, who have no say in the matter. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it's right.
    Pretty much. Like I said, I’m content to “confiscate” more money from the very wealthy to provide more security, stability, and prosperity for the rest of society.

    I don't know what you're talking about. Seems like you made up a position I never stated to make you're previous incorrect position seem more reasonable
    I’m referring to sentiments that you’ve repeated many times, along the lines of what thethe said earlier—that capital’s influence on the electoral system is bad. That so-called crony capitalism is bad. You decry the influence of money on government, yet you view it, in your own words, as a flaw of government, not of capitalism. I’m asking, first, whether you think the government subsidies of industry that you oppose are a logical outgrowth of capitalism? You think that government is simply offering those subsidies, or do you think that they’re being solicited or bought? If the latter, do you think this is a perfectly rational consequence of capitalism, or not? Upthread you’re talking about corporatism vs capitalism. I confess that I see that as a distinction without a difference (with the caveat that “corporatism” has a specific definition which is apart from what you seem to be referring to) I see capital gaining an advantage in the marketplace and seeking to keep it by whatever means necessary. What you seem to be saying is sort of a “No true Scotsman” proposition, which keeps your platonic ideal of capitalism forever pure. When capital behaves as it is rationally wont to, and seeks to purchase an advantage by subverting the government, you say “that’s not a bug in capitalism” So tell me: why not? And what’s the remedy, beyond laws and regulation? Surely that’s not the answer.

    I'm a self-proclaimed capitalist. Again, I'm not sure what you're angle is with this weird position you've made up for me. I don't want money influencing our government. I want the market to work, and the government to protect the market by defending property rights.
    There’s no viable market without a similarly viable legal authority to make and enforce rules. In our system, that viable authority is us. The market is as regulated or unfettered as we decide it is. If given the latitude to do so, corporate entities will do whatever is necessary to turn a buck and stifle competition, including colluding with their nominal competitors. We’ve seen this specifically (to pull a near-random example) in the agricultural sector, where ADM’s in-house joke was “the competition is our friend and the customer is our enemy” but more broadly where corporate interests have, for decades, broadly colluded on multiple fronts to weaken the power of labor and depress wages. The multi-generational effort to destroy organized labor has been celebrated by every pro-capitalist entity. It’s anti-capitalist, according to your definition, because it’s involved co-opting the government. But it seems to me about as pure an expression of capitalism in practice as exists.

    So, do you think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, that money =/= speech, and that unlimited, anonymous political contributions should be illegal? If the answer is no, I’m not sure how you can say you don’t want money influencing our government. If you think that the hyper-rich making a concerted effort to destroy the power of organized labor is fine, say so, but don’t say in the same breath that it isn’t capitalism. Either you’re ok with the idea that our political system is a wholly-owned subsidiary of capitalism or you’re not. You’re somehow simultaneously arguing that both major political parties are corrupt and irredeemable, and that the world that they’ve created is better than any alternative other than some Randian fantasyland that exists only in theory. Put a marker down. Accept that the current system is a product of capitalism or explain why it isn’t.

  10. #450
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...enue-share-gdp

    PS, I like this presentation of the tax revenue data better, as it’s more specific and more comprehensive.

  11. #451
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Julio, it seems like your basic premise is that man is inherently immoral and therefore capitalism does not benefit the masses. Why is that same premise not involved to a more government controlled system? Why wouldn't a government official also be immoral?
    Natural Immunity Croc

  12. #452
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Gersh Kuntzman
    ‏Verified account @GershKuntzman
    2h2 hours ago

    The GOP can attack ⁦@AOC⁩ all it wants but she just danced her way

    to the wood of the ⁦@NYDailyNews⁩ with a proposal the newspaper wouldn’t

    have even covered before. So troll her at your own risk.

    She’s a leader who just jumpstarted the conversation on a major issue.






    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  13. #453
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Love the new narrative that AOC is attacked for anything other than her idiotic economic solutions.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  14. #454
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Love the new narrative that AOC is attacked for anything other than her idiotic economic solutions.
    I guess I hallucinated the bits about the expensive clothes she wore in a photo shoot, the clothes she wore to the Hill, the high school she attended, and her Breakfast Club dance in college.

  15. #455
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I guess I hallucinated the bits about the expensive clothes she wore in a photo shoot, the clothes she wore to the Hill, the high school she attended, and her Breakfast Club dance in college.
    Well she lied about her upbringing by stating that she is a 'Bronx' girl. As you know the implication is that this is equivalent to poverty.

    She also espouses the 'little person' and yet wore designer apparel for a photo shoot that her constituency could not dream of ever affording.

    So yes, when she lies (misleads - whatever you want to call it) and is hypocritical then she deserves to be criticized.

    However, the OVERWHELMING majority of the criticism she receives is based on her absolute bat**** crazy economic ideas.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  16. #456
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I guess I hallucinated the bits about the expensive clothes she wore in a photo shoot, the clothes she wore to the Hill, the high school she attended, and her Breakfast Club dance in college.
    Or you conflated a random Twitter account who is now.deleted as the GOP.

    Seriously, nobody gave a **** about her dancing. I half suspect she release it herself so she could cling to that narrative. There are more Dems who believe the Senate was gerrymandered than GOP upset about her clothes and dancing. But don't let that stop you from from projecting

    GOP attacks her bc of.her policies and the fact that the media puts her on 60 min right out of the gate. She's the dumbest person in Congress and that's saying something (feel free to launch your racist and sexist line at me here)

    I'll respond to your other post when I'm off mobile

  17. #457
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    So... No data then.

    I'm shocked!

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to sturg33 For This Useful Post:

    acesfull86 (01-05-2019)

  19. #458
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    Or you conflated a random Twitter account who is now.deleted as the GOP.

    Seriously, nobody gave a **** about her dancing. I half suspect she release it herself so she could cling to that narrative. There are more Dems who believe the Senate was gerrymandered than GOP upset about her clothes and dancing. But don't let that stop you from from projecting

    GOP attacks her bc of.her policies and the fact that the media puts her on 60 min right out of the gate. She's the dumbest person in Congress and that's saying something (feel free to launch your racist and sexist line at me here)

    I'll respond to your other post when I'm off mobile
    Oh, so we’re just talking about the GOP and not the Charlie Kirks and Jim Hofts of the world? Good to know for future reference, given your predilection for posting rando tweets and holding everyone to the left of you to account for them.

    For the record, thethe said “love the narrative that AOC is being attacked...”

    I answered that she’d been attacked for her clothes, her school, and her shimmy. Not sure where you’re getting that.

    And, dumbest member of Congress? For real? What do you base THAT on?

  20. #459
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Well she lied about her upbringing by stating that she is a 'Bronx' girl. As you know the implication is that this is equivalent to poverty.

    She also espouses the 'little person' and yet wore designer apparel for a photo shoot that her constituency could not dream of ever affording.

    So yes, when she lies (misleads - whatever you want to call it) and is hypocritical then she deserves to be criticized.

    However, the OVERWHELMING majority of the criticism she receives is based on her absolute bat**** crazy economic ideas.
    Ok, so she’s not being criticized for anything except policy, except when she is, in which case it’s warranted.

    So wearing expensive clothes in a photo shoot—which clothes, to be clear, she did not own—is hypocritical somehow?

    Let me get this part straight: she was born in the Bronx to a Bronx native and a Puerto Rican immigrant. She lived there in early childhood, moved to the ‘burbs, then moved back after college and has lived there since. Her father died when she was a teen and her mother cleaned houses and drove buses to support their family. You’re seriously saying that she can’t rightfully claim to be a) working class or b) from the Bronx?

    Now, personally, I don’t think one has to be a 100% authentic working class hero in order to be an advocate for the working class, but ymmv.

  21. #460
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Ok, so she’s not being criticized for anything except policy, except when she is, in which case it’s warranted.

    So wearing expensive clothes in a photo shoot—which clothes, to be clear, she did not own—is hypocritical somehow?

    Let me get this part straight: she was born in the Bronx to a Bronx native and a Puerto Rican immigrant. She lived there in early childhood, moved to the ‘burbs, then moved back after college and has lived there since. Her father died when she was a teen and her mother cleaned houses and drove buses to support their family. You’re seriously saying that she can’t rightfully claim to be a) working class or b) from the Bronx?

    Now, personally, I don’t think one has to be a 100% authentic working class hero in order to be an advocate for the working class, but ymmv.
    Would you like to weight how often she is criticized for what? And yet the impression that is given is that she is criticized solely because she is young, a women, and Puerto Rican. Its a scam to shroud the fact that she is a complete idiot and has no clue what she is talking about.

    Please, maybe you have no clue what New York is like but when you say you are from the Bronx it means something much different than where she was born and raised. She is actually a prime example of how our system works in that she went to a good school and because a congresswomen and yet she wants to radically change the system. Funny...
    Natural Immunity Croc

Similar Threads

  1. Sad state of American Economics
    By zitothebrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 11-19-2014, 01:40 PM
  2. Does Obama Understand Basic Economics?
    By acesfull86 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-18-2014, 09:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •