Jump to content

Politics US Edition (2021-vol 2)


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Nah, I would say platitudes about Communism and Socialism being viable systems of working governments are way, way overdone 

It doesn't matter anyway, Communism requires certain conditions to gain traction; oppressive feudalist/monarchist elements, and U.S. has shed those almost 250 years ago.

What's annoying is peoples absolute love affair with capitalism and being closed minded to any kind of reforms.

"America would be unrecognizable if it had ordered the separation of corporation and state like it orders separation of church and state."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

It doesn't matter anyway, Communism requires certain conditions to gain traction; oppressive feudalist/monarchist elements, and U.S. has shed those almost 250 years ago.

What's annoying is peoples absolute love affair with capitalism and being closed minded to any kind of reforms.

I dont think people have any kind of real  emotional connection with Capitalism, many of us work and exist due to institutions that are intrinsically part of the Capitalist system. Its works and their is historical precedent to confirm this, we are aware their are issues with the free market but its a better option than other systems

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

I dont think people have any kind of real  emotional connection with Capitalism, many of us work and exist due to institutions that are intrinsically part of the Capitalist system. Its works and their is historical precedent to confirm this, we are aware their are issues with the free market but its a better option than other systems

Exactly my point, "Other systems" is implying that nothing new can be formed because it's assuming that it's just going to lead to failure, that'[s close-mindedness right there.  UBI and automation is a start, so let's take this in baby steps.

IN OTHER NEWS, anyone else getting a sense that Biden is starting to turn into a neocon?  It's too bad he's a sweet old man but it's only a matter of time before the establishment has their way with him.

Americans voted for change twice in the form of Obama and Trump but it's clearly obvious at this point that both parties are sucked into the cog wheels of imperialism so nothing can get accomplished to help the people on the bottom. 

"America would be unrecognizable if it had ordered the separation of corporation and state like it orders separation of church and state."

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going to have to consider an economic shift of one kind or another. Our system relies on consumption to run. Without it the economy does not work. We are approaching the time when there will not be enough employment for willing workers to keep that going. Heck we might be there already. UBI is a possible solution but I’m not real sure if it can work 

  • Hmmm 1

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

We are going to have to consider an economic shift of one kind or another. Our system relies on consumption to run. Without it the economy does not work. We are approaching the time when there will not be enough employment for willing workers to keep that going. Heck we might be there already. UBI is a possible solution but I’m not real sure if it can work 

But one of the most effective ways to sustain and ensure any economy is strong is known as a consumer driven economy which is a huge  factor in driving GDP. The point makes sense as basically it involves people having  jobs and spending money internally within the country. This is a  huge part of the USA economic strength and one I personally believe makes logical economic sense 

So when you say consumption economy what do you mean? Do you mean the same as consumer spending and what is your concern

Here is a good link that summarizes the advantages of a consumer driven economy 

https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-definition-and-determinants-3305917

 

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

UBI is a possible solution but I’m not real sure if it can work 

Fundamentally there's no reason it can't work. I mean, corps and banks have been getting public monies for a while in the form of stimulus packages, tax breaks and bailouts. It doesn't seem to be "trickling down" all that much. Why not try giving that money to random people and see if it "trickles up", eh?

  • Like 2
  • Gasp! 1

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

We are going to have to consider an economic shift of one kind or another. Our system relies on consumption to run. Without it the economy does not work. We are approaching the time when there will not be enough employment for willing workers to keep that going. Heck we might be there already. UBI is a possible solution but I’m not real sure if it can work 

Why do you think it can't work ?

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Fundamentally there's no reason it can't work. I mean, corps and banks have been getting public monies for a while in the form of stimulus packages, tax breaks and bailouts. It doesn't seem to be "trickling down" all that much. Why not try giving that money to random people and see if it "trickles up", eh?

Here is what concerns me. The market tends to adjust itself to what people are able to pay. Meaning if everybody is suddenly given $500 of public money to help them pay their rent a lot of them will see the rent rise by $500. The landlord figuring well they were already able to come up with it when it was $500 lower....

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only possible with bubbles though. If your landlord immediately racks up the price by $500 you go live elsewhere where rent hasn't been raised because it makes no sense to raise rent on an empty house. Your former landlord is now making a grand total of $0 and the new one is making your old (or close to) rent. Market self-adjustment is an old chestnut, and I think the last few years should be evidence enough that markets are much more sensitive to market manipulation and (de)regulations than the kind of thing you're referring to.

I'm not a huge fan of UBI myself. Something like public job guarantee programs are more appealing to me on a conceptual level and they also have the advantage of preempting any "lol u just wanna stay at home playing videogames all day" arguments from neoliberal minions.

Edited by 213374U
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Here is what concerns me. The market tends to adjust itself to what people are able to pay. Meaning if everybody is suddenly given $500 of public money to help them pay their rent a lot of them will see the rent rise by $500. The landlord figuring well they were already able to come up with it when it was $500 lower....

So you want rent control...

  • Gasp! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

So you want rent control...

That's Socialism.

  • Haha 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hurlshot said:

So you want rent control...

But the same will apply to other commodities. Food, medicine etc. So you will want that prices controlled to. And all of a sudden you wake up with a central planned economy.

Also price control also doesn't work, because what will providers do when they cannot increase the price? They are cutting costs. So you will get lower and lower standards of goods provided.  

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. Setting maximum prices on essential stuff like medicine, groceries and housing is to central planning what removing a wart is to neurosurgery.

Nice slippery slope though.

  • Like 4

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Why do you think it can't work ?

Depends on what the definition of it working would be.

If the goal would be to provide an amount that allows people to pay their rent and food then you will end up with a constant chasing of increasing prices. Because in order to get the amount needed to give everybody that amount you will need to raise taxes, which will increase prices, which will make the amount not sufficient so you raise taxes and so on. Not to mention the population of people is increasing without any significant increase in tax income since the age of entering the workforce is also increasing. It's a Chernobyl level of vicious cycle that will eventually lead to explosion. 

I will give you an example from Poland. The ruling party introduced the 500+ program. 500 PLN for every child. This program had two goals: decreasing the poverty level and increase the number of kids born. And it failed on both accounts. The poverty level increased because people taking the money are making sure they don't cross the income threshold to get this payment and the fertility level decreased because people with no kids pay more due to increased prices and taxes and decide they cannot afford kids in this circumstances. 

Handing free money is never a good idea and it will backfire in the long run.

Edited by Skarpen

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody likes to call this stuff free money, but really it is the government giving back money that they take from us. Some people at the lowest levels might come out ahead, but most people are still paying more than they will be getting back.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I live rent has rapidly risen up over the years without a minimum wage increase, freedom bucks, or drastic changes to median income so I'm more than a little dubious of the market producing a price people are able to pay.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Um. Setting maximum prices on essential stuff like medicine, groceries and housing is to central planning what removing a wart is to neurosurgery.

Nice slippery slope though.

So what would happen in your mind if there is a set maximum price on any product and the costs to provide this product increase? You think providers will just roll with it?

There are two outcomes: either the costs have to be cut or if further costs cuts are not possible there will be no providers for such a product.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KaineParker said:

Where I live rent has rapidly risen up over the years without a minimum wage increase, freedom bucks, or drastic changes to median income so I'm more than a little dubious of the market producing a price people are able to pay.

Then what is the reason for the increase? There has to be one. 

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Where I live rent has rapidly risen up over the years without a minimum wage increase, freedom bucks, or drastic changes to median income so I'm more than a little dubious of the market producing a price people are able to pay.

Likewise, we do have rent control here so there's a maximum increase but that only applies to buildings made before a cutoff date (politicians can be rented too, I guess).  So it's not as if the price is fixed or anything and can understand the idea behind gaming this one aspect of the economy as it's a strategic need

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Everybody likes to call this stuff free money, but really it is the government giving back money that they take from us. Some people at the lowest levels might come out ahead, but most people are still paying more than they will be getting back.

You are forgetting that governments have money printers and debt, so not all the money they give are actually what they can gather in taxes.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

So you want rent control...

LOL you went in the complete opposite direction that I would have there! I was pointing out how that is an example of how UB I might not work rather than escalating cost being a problem to be solved

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

You are forgetting that governments have money printers and debt, so not all the money they give are actually what they can gather in taxes.

Just printing money willy-nilly is the financial equivalent of pulling the pin and swallowing the hand grenade

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 213374U said:

That's only possible with bubbles though. If your landlord immediately racks up the price by $500 you go live elsewhere where rent hasn't been raised because it makes no sense to raise rent on an empty house. Your former landlord is now making a grand total of $0 and the new one is making your old (or close to) rent. Market self-adjustment is an old chestnut, and I think the last few years should be evidence enough that markets are much more sensitive to market manipulation and (de)regulations than the kind of thing you're referring to.

I'm not a huge fan of UBI myself. Something like public job guarantee programs are more appealing to me on a conceptual level and they also have the advantage of preempting any "lol u just wanna stay at home playing videogames all day" arguments from neoliberal minions.

I completely agree with you. Full employment is far better than any kind of hand out. The worrying thing is what happens when there’s not enough work to employ all the willing and able workers? No one will pay someone to do nothing. Well on second thought that’s not true the government does that all the time LOL!

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Then what is the reason for the increase? There has to be one. 

borrowed money on housing market that increases price of house such speed that it is better to keep house empty than rent it for somebody, as renters lower price that you get from selling the house.

Many of the big cities have tens of thousand empty apartments where nobody never lives just for housing markets to make money from selling them around. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...