Jump to content

The All Things Political Thread (One thread to rule them all and in the darkness bind them)


Gorth

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

The problem isn't so much the spending, I guess, but the tax cuts. Decades of them.

Not the taax cuts itswlf, but a combination of tax cuts, which allowed making investments into off shore locations to drive production costs down, and allowed for a stocks buy backs, which with combination of cheap money from FED, made a sharp increase in value of wall street assets, and made top 1% even richer. 

 

However, I'd say that increasing taxes would not make this ratio better. You'd just incentivize corporations and rich people to relocate the operations, dampening the growth part, while having only a short term effect for lower deficit, andbthen it bursting up higher (as you see in the examples of failed municipalities, like Chicago) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Sort of like standing in a bucket and trying to lift ourselves up by the handle?

No.

"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a shame. ;(  Im totally down for giving it a try though. The fact that my income bracket would not be subject to massive increases, combined with my inalienable birthrights of UHC, UFE and UBI, means that I can only benefit from taxing those fatcats until they pay whats due to me.

300px-You_Son_of_a_Bitch,_I%E2%80%99m_In 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Thats a shame. ;(  Im totally down for giving it a try though. The fact that my income bracket would not be subject to massive increases, combined with my inalienable birthrights of UHC, UFE and UBI, means that I can only benefit from taxing those fatcats until they pay whats due to me.

300px-You_Son_of_a_Bitch,_I%E2%80%99m_In 

But Gfted1 despite all these so called benefits you dont want to be associated with  problematic socialist and Communist policies

"Better dead than red " ....never forget that 

Remember people want the USA to go socialist so when its fails they can gloat because somehow this will make them feel better about inequality but  that will just become worse ...not better 

Dont  fall for it and allow yourself to be manipulated !!!!!! 

:teehee:

 

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"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 comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Not the taax cuts itswlf, but a combination of tax cuts, which allowed making investments into off shore locations to drive production costs down, and allowed for a stocks buy backs, which with combination of cheap money from FED, made a sharp increase in value of wall street assets, and made top 1% even richer. 

 

However, I'd say that increasing taxes would not make this ratio better. You'd just incentivize corporations and rich people to relocate the operations, dampening the growth part, while having only a short term effect for lower deficit, andbthen it bursting up higher (as you see in the examples of failed municipalities, like Chicago) 

tax cuts that are funded with debt will eventually worsen deficit, as increasing spending and decreasing income has habit to do. But Lala land dream where tax cut not only increases state income more than lost tax revenue and increased interest, but it increases state income in such extend that state can take even more debt to pay public projects lives strong among modern politicians. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Elerond said:

tax cuts that are funded with debt will eventually worsen deficit, as increasing spending and decreasing income has habit to do. But Lala land dream where tax cut not only increases state income more than lost tax revenue and increased interest, but it increases state income in such extend that state can take even more debt to pay public projects lives strong among modern politicians. 

I'd look at this more like tax cuts and savings on the spending side. Remove some of the ineffective redistribution and trim down the fat on the state aparatus, which is non-productive. 

 

You need a certain level of tax, which can fulfill a specific 'contract' (mostly infrastructure, security and education based, plus some BASIC safety nets in income and healthcare - this includes promoting healthy lifestyle and not accepting fatness as a beauty standard). However, the more you put the tax on those, who put a lot of effort, time and investment, including perosonal lifestyle and delayed gratification, the more likely they will feel screwed over and will look into a ways of getting out of the system, which punishes them for their smart choices. Obviously criminal behavior should be punished so hard, including claims of assets, that people would not see a value in risking it against a fair work and paying fair taxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Darkpriest & @Pidesco

Most of our debt is not money spent. It's money obligated for future expenditures that does not exist. And no, adeherence to MMT (or Keynes on sterioids) where we "create" soft money is not IMO a good thing. Deficits are a big part of Keynsian economics. Use government spending to get the private sector rolling. It does work. IMO it's not the right way to go but yes, history demonstrates it does work. But... there is a comeuppance: devalued capital. Inflation. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Only with MMT they have been kicking the can down the road by using taxation not just as a revenue generating device rather to remove excess money and forestall devaluation. But.... it's coming. Tax is one of those things that just has to be done. Yes, it is theft. Money taken by threat of force. But Leviathan has a big appetite. But it is also, at some point self defeating. If my taxes go up I spend less. If I spend less businesses sell less. When they sell less the manufacturers make less. Revenue goes down all the way up the food chain. Tax as a percentage of revenue goes down to because of the drop in revenue. It's called the Laffer Curve. 

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

tax cuts that are funded with debt will eventually worsen deficit, as increasing spending and decreasing income has habit to do. But Lala land dream where tax cut not only increases state income more than lost tax revenue and increased interest, but it increases state income in such extend that state can take even more debt to pay public projects lives strong among modern politicians. 

Tax cuts couple with spending increases are just weapons grade stupid. We have had a lot of that in the US the past 21 years. Tac cuts couples with spending reductions absolutely DO grow governemnt revenue because they are taking a smaller percentage of a bigger number. It's not politics. It's just math. 

Edited by Guard Dog

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Deficits are a big part of Keynsian economics.

Yeah, the problem is not deficit spending, it's governments forgetting the second part of Keynes' recommendation. Borrow in a recession to stimulate growth, then pay back the borrowing in the good times to prepare for the next recession. There are more votes in cutting taxes so you get deficit spending in a boom too.

The Keynesian approach is definitely better than the disastrous austerity approach tried in some places which neither significantly reduced debt nor got the economy growing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think state sponsored gambling could also go a long way to curb any deficits 

Imagine if the government sponsored and legitimized gambling and prostitution xD

I mean organized crime is already abandoning it's pro-union pro-worker heritage and are basically on the same side as the far right fascists now so perhaps the government can take a slice of that action.

“If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” 

-Ulysses S. Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

@Darkpriest & @Pidesco

Most of our debt is not money spent. It's money obligated for future expenditures that does not exist. And no, adeherence to MMT (or Keynes on sterioids) where we "create" soft money is not IMO a good thing. Deficits are a big part of Keynsian economics. Use government spending to get the private sector rolling. It does work. IMO it's not the right way to go but yes, history demonstrates it does work. But... there is a comeuppance: devalued capital. Inflation. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Only with MMT they have been kicking the can down the road by using taxation not just as a revenue generating device rather to remove excess money and forestall devaluation. But.... it's coming. Tax is one of those things that just has to be done. Yes, it is theft. Money taken by threat of force. But Leviathan has a big appetite. But it is also, at some point self defeating. If my taxes go up I spend less. If I spend less businesses sell less. When they sell less the manufacturers make less. Revenue goes down all the way up the food chain. Tax as a percentage of revenue goes down to because of the drop in revenue. It's called the Laffer Curve. 

Supply side economics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve are not based on empirical evidence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-black-comedy-of-arthur-laffer

 

 

  • Like 1

"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Supply side economics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve are not based on empirical evidence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-black-comedy-of-arthur-laffer

 

 

LOL very reputable sources! Kidding of course. There are detractors to any idea and nothing works with 100% efficiency Like our old buddy JMK would say “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

At the risk of repeating something for the hundred thousandth  time if the world had been designed by me the government and the economy would have a few degrees of separation in between them. That’s not the world we find ourselves in. So it does no good talking about all the things that we should’ve done because we didn’t do them. MMT is what we are doing now and I am 100% convinced that the default on the rapidly expanding debt is inevitable followed by economic collapse. Probably worldwide. It’s probably bad form to use two quotes even from the same guy in the same post but what the hell here it goes “if you owe the bank 100 pounds you have a problem. If you owe the bank 1,000,000 pounds the bank has a problem“.

The upshot is there’s no point in being concerned about it because there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is prepare yourself and your family for dealing with the consequences. Speaking only for myself I have done that to the best of my ability.

 

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

These  types of stories really annoy me. When people decide to be selective about things like poverty and offensive comments and decide " if you white you automatically come from privlidege and cant say you understand poverty or say you live in poverty  "  or how " only white people can say racist things " 

I hope this story is somehow wrong because all relief should be allocated based on your actual income reality and not your race

The good news is the 2 Trillion dollar stimulus is not based on race but on peoples economic reality. So this may be something specific to Oakland ?

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"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 comment
Share on other sites

A bit different, but perhaps some of our Danish residents can clarify. 

Seems there has been a series of actions this year in Denmark:

1) Limiting number of asylum seekers

2) Banning foreign funding of mosques

3) Rellocation policies, and housing policies changes to force integration by attempt to remove as they called it "paralel societies" 

 

I wonder what's the view of that and do you think such a central planning can work in Denmark? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Supply side economics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve are not based on empirical evidence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-black-comedy-of-arthur-laffer

 

 

Well, we have had ample examples that socializm does not work, yet there we are each time there is a bit more of stable and prosperous time, people wanting to implement it saying "this time it is different, because xyz is taking care of that" 

I'd rather rely on a reason, that people with brains, means and assets will make every effort not to get screwed over by government policies. After all, it's their skill that got them there. 

There is a bit of a difference when it comes to geberational wealth, but should you punish someone, just because his/her granparents created business that brought value to them and to the economy? 

 

BTW - Is Argentina looking to default again (shocking...)? 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/argentina-can-t-pay-45-billion-imf-loan-vice-president-says

Edited by Darkpriest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

A bit different, but perhaps some of our Danish residents can clarify. 

Seems there has been a series of actions this year in Denmark:

1) Limiting number of asylum seekers

2) Banning foreign funding of mosques

3) Rellocation policies, and housing policies changes to force integration by attempt to remove as they called it "paralel societies" 

 

I wonder what's the view of that and do you think such a central planning can work in Denmark? 

 

Interesting questions, I have no idea how valid they are so it will be interesting to get comments from our Nordic members

But do you have an issue with any country restricting immigration? I dont because I live in a  country where illegal immigration has reach a crisis and our government has failed to do anything meaningful about it and it is has hurt our economy and created unnecessary tension on the ground between SA citizens and illegal foreigners. SA is now seen as a " Xenophobic and Afriphobic " country by certain other African countries and its not 

Also I have no  issue with the banning of foreign funding for mosques, I support the domestic funding  of mosques but the issue with foreign funding is that it can lead to ideological influence that is not aligned to the culture and value system of the country where the actual funding is directed

 

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"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 comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Interesting questions, I have no idea how valid they are so it will be interesting to get comments from our Nordic members

But do you have an issue with any country restricting immigration? I dont because I live in a  country where illegal immigration has reach a crisis and our government has failed to do anything meaningful about it and it is has hurt our economy and created unnecessary tension on the ground between SA citizens and illegal foreigners. SA is now seen as a " Xenophobic and Afriphobic " country by certain other African countries and its not 

Also I have no  issue with the banning of foreign funding for mosques, I support the domestic funding  of mosques but the issue with foreign funding is that it can lead to ideological influence that is not aligned to the culture and value system of the country where the actual funding is directed

 

Personally, I don't and I was voicing this approach a decade ago. I'm also a fan of a symmetrical treatment in aspects of tolerance, otherwise, like in a bad marriage, one side gets abused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Well, we have had ample examples that socializm does not work, yet there we are each time there is a bit more of stable and prosperous time, people wanting to implement it saying "this time it is different, because xyz is taking care of that" 

I'd rather rely on a reason, that people with brains, means and assets will make every effort not to get screwed over by government policies. After all, it's their skill that got them there. 

There is a bit of a difference when it comes to geberational wealth, but should you punish someone, just because his/her granparents created business that brought value to them and to the economy? 

 

BTW - Is Argentina looking to default again (shocking...)? 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/argentina-can-t-pay-45-billion-imf-loan-vice-president-says

Dz4MAmtXcAAPHIm.jpg:large

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Well, we have had ample examples that socializm does not work, yet there we are each time there is a bit more of stable and prosperous time, people wanting to implement it saying "this time it is different, because xyz is taking care of that"

No one wants to implement socialism though. No one except loonies on the fringes. Wanting a government that cares for its people (affordable education & healthcare, proper labour rights, etc) is what most left-leaning people want. That's not socialism, that's just common sense.

Edited by Maedhros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Dz4MAmtXcAAPHIm.jpg:large

You fail to grasp, that Norway moved from a country of poor fishermen to a rich country due to oil industry? 

They've had years of budgetary surplus due to oil revenue, so like a spoiled rich child, they have some money to squander, but with a certain lifestyle and dwindling resources, that won't last forever. 

It's like saying, lets take example from UAE or Kuwait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

You fail to grasp, that Norway moved from a country of poor fishermen to a rich country due to oil industry? 

They've had years of budgetary surplus due to oil revenue, so like a spoiled rich child, they have some money to squander, but with a certain lifestyle and dwindling resources, that won't last forever. 

It's like saying, lets take example from UAE or Kuwait. 

Actually Norway appears to be saving money hand over fist.

Also, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Germany if you want other examples. Actually, while some countries are better managed than others, the entirety of Western Europe has robust social welfare policies. Most of them do not have oil

"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

No one wants to implement socialism though. No one except loonies on the fringes. Wanting a government that cares for its people (cheap education/healthcare) is what most left-leaning people want. That's not socialism, that's just common sense.

How do you want to achieve that? Cap prices for companies providing those services? Incresing taxes? More debt? Perhaps stop listening and paying so much to ass twerking or ball catching performers and make all that money be directed at your baseline education and trade/craftmanship schools? 

Edited by Darkpriest
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...