Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[injurai]

Probably good to note that the health care problems in the US are a relatively new problem, and have been driven by numerous factors. It was a lot easier to say no one is entitled to health care in the US when it was relatively affordable. But it isn't anymore, which means we either need to find a way to drag those prices back down to a reasonable level, or figure out a better alternative. If we can do the former, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. We do have a number of successful models to look at in other countries though.

 

I'd rather decades old medicine be affordable so people can stop being hit by surprise, instead of used as a way to earn passive income on IPs. It's the same issue with ticket quotas that our police departments have. Stop trying to sell x-amount of medicine to make y-amount of budgetary spending.

 

What I'd really like to see a nationalized research budget to fund the sciences. Keep the manufacturing end a competitive at will market. Thing is these corporations want to achieve unilateral control over the whole industry and bring R&D into themselves. I'd rather two markets. A competitive R&D market competing for national funding, and an applied industry that seeks to bring down prices.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

[Gorgon]

@Guard Dog. So what happens to your debt if you try that and the effect doesn't show ?

 

Besides, how does Reaganomics handle globalization. You are assuming that American companies will generate tax revenues and jobs in the US but you have little in the way of production base anymore. One cant really assume that consumers will chose domestic products, I mean you cant make a car that anyone wants. Jobs are wherever, for the most part anyway. Do you plan to artificially boost the defense sector to the same levels as during Reagan as well.

[Gorgon]

 

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

 

As long as they can keep borrowing there is. 

[injurai]

Is there any long term investigations or studies into what the United States debt owned by China will eventually lead to? It's not like China will start exporting their industry back to us. They are looking to Africa to pass the manufacturing buck to.

 

If automation hits wide scale and rolls out first in the US we could presumably start raising taxes on US corporations and start paying down the deficit without increasing taxes on the people. But I very much doubt that will be the case.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

 

As long as they can keep borrowing there is. 

 

 

I'm reasonably sure that's not how infinity or borrowing works.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sure it does. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing. We then use that money to buy crap from China. We then borrow that money back from China to buy more of their crap, ad infinitum.

[HoonDing]

"So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?"

 

the secret is Charles Montgomery Burns' magical 1 billion dollar bills

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

In theory there is infinite money, seeing as money is a construct rather than a universial value. The result of printing a lot would be devaluation, which sucks for those who saved but could be done to make labor cheaper assuming minimum wage didn't increase.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Colonialism and Capitalism go hand in hand. There are too many examples to list. just to chose one ; the East India company ?

 

Yep, tens of millions of Indians starved growing opium to sell to the Chinese literally so that Britain could get cheap tea. That's pretty human though, Kongo Free State was probably worse in terms of being inhuman and calculatedly brutal. I bet a billion dollars against 2c there will be a No True Scotsman defence incoming.

 

There's also plenty of example of ideologically driven mass killings in the name of capitalism, Latin America is riven with examples (eg Mayan Genocide in Guatemala, pretty much anything involving UFC/ Chiquita).

 

 

I highly doubt that killing Indians improves growing opium. If I recall correctly there was a famine, so what?

 

 

Yeah, but I guess we won't be saying 'so what' to all the communist famines, will we? They'll be Different, Somehow. Raj/ eic prioritised opium over food production and kept exporting food while other Indians starved. That continued right up until Churchill. And it didn't really matter if millions died since they "breed like rabbits". Ah, Winston S, you pithy little racist you.

 

What examples of Latin America killings of it's own citizens in the name of capitalism are you talking about? I'm not to familiar with Latin America that much.

UFC/ Chiquita (where the term 'banana republic' originated), Mayan Genocide, Pinochet etc. I'd provide more examples, but I know I'll get 'that does not count, just because' answers.

 

 

Queen Vic was Empress of India- they were her subjects every bit as much as the Ockers, Canadians or Brits. At the time most Brits had the exact same voting rights as an Indian, too, ie none. The modern concept of 'citizen' is, well, modern. If we go by citizens then capitalism in the southern US had no victims because the slave owners were citizens while the slaves weren't.

Let's not change the meaning of words because they hurt our argument. That's ridiculous. In that case communistic regimes didn't "kill" anyone as the "killing" only apply to communistic regime loyal citizens and not "traitors". Who are the "traitors"? Anyone the communistic regime "diversifies".

 

 

I'm not changing words' meaning, time has. 'Citizen' in the modern sense didn't exist until well into the 20th century, many if not most of the Brits who died in WW1 could not vote in the country they were dying for. Specifying own citizens is specious and circular, precisely because it excludes anyone living in the country who isn't a citizen, and they're always the ones that are most disadvantaged because they lack the rights that make a citizen. You end up with the southern USA being great because slaves weren't citizens and thus don't count against citizens being disadvantaged by capitalism- but the advantages to the slave owning citizens from the slavery still counts as an advantage.

 

I bet a billion dollars against 2c there will be a No True Scotsman defence incoming.

 

now you mixing feudal system versus democracy into mix...

 

Awesome, 4c. I'll try not to spend it all at once.

 

(Reaaly though? Britain hadn't been feudal for literally centuries when Vic was ruling)

[majestic]

If automation hits wide scale and rolls out first in the US we could presumably start raising taxes on US corporations and start paying down the deficit without increasing taxes on the people. But I very much doubt that will be the case.

 

Oi, that's an idea socialists came up with in the late 70ies and eartly 80ies when this whole labour outsorcing and automation process started to take off, essentially taxing the increased profit generated by outsourcing or automation in order to make up for the loss of the workforce's (income) tax revenue.

 

Although before resurrecting the commie ghosts of the 70ies it might just do to stop silly offshore tax dodging in a coordinated effort.

[SonicMage117]

I feel like a civil war is about to break out in my country.

 

People are always so damn touchy, can't say anything that differs from what someone else likes or you're indtantly a liberal/condervative/sjw. People always have to put titles on each other. It's pretty sickening but oh well.

 

The country I live in just isn't great anymore unfortunately and I'm the most patriotic person you will ever meet but when the country has driven itself down to the ground and tripped over it's own pride, I can't feel so patriotic atm.

 

And it has nothing to do with who's in office but my statement stems purely from the peoples of the country who are harming the country more than the government and those in high office.

[injurai]

Where does China get it's own money? Do they print there own currency too? We can't be the only nation that just prints money. You typically don't want to print too much because you devalue your own currency.

 

I see a lot of stuff about how all money is backed on the US dollar and the USD is floating. But Aren't they actually all relatively floating compared to each other? I know some are directly based on the USD but I seem to find it hard to believe that China's currency would be.

Edited July 11, 2017 by injurai

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Although before resurrecting the commie ghosts of the 70ies it might just do to stop silly offshore tax dodging in a coordinated effort.

There is a spectre haunting automation...

[HoonDing]

"Where does China get it's own money?"

 

China is 4,000 years old civilization. Think of all the gold they've been hoarding ever since.

[Rosbjerg]

Capitalism is the only economic system that allows for a semblance of democracy because of the distribution of ownership. Under socialism you could theoretically claim to be free, but since you have to work for the government, you're only free if you don't care about having a job and eating.

Well we've never tried democracy without a monetary system, so we don't really know. Might work better without it.

 

As for your last point, interesting a similar argument could be laid against capitalism. You cannot not participate, as capitalism in general relies on private ownership of property - and since all property has basically been apropriated, non particupation is practically impossible. Either you're free by work and ownership - or you starve.

[SonicMage117]

 

Capitalism is the only economic system that allows for a semblance of democracy because of the distribution of ownership. Under socialism you could theoretically claim to be free, but since you have to work for the government, you're only free if you don't care about having a job and eating.

Well we've never tried democracy without a monetary system, so we don't really know. Might work better without it.

As for your last point, interesting a similar argument could be laid against capitalism. You cannot not participate, as capitalism in general relies on private ownership of property - and since all property has basically been apropriated, non particupation is practically impossible. Either you're free by work and ownership - or you starve.

You mean a the free trade system that pilgrims and native indians did? That could be good. It would highlight people's specialties and talents.

[Blarghagh]

Oh dear, is Mr Trump in a bit of hot water because of some e-mails? Finger lickin' good, this.

[Namutree]

Oh dear, is Mr Trump in a bit of hot water because of some e-mails?

No.

[Namutree]

 

 

Capitalism is the only economic system that allows for a semblance of democracy because of the distribution of ownership. Under socialism you could theoretically claim to be free, but since you have to work for the government, you're only free if you don't care about having a job and eating.

Well we've never tried democracy without a monetary system, so we don't really know. Might work better without it.

As for your last point, interesting a similar argument could be laid against capitalism. You cannot not participate, as capitalism in general relies on private ownership of property - and since all property has basically been apropriated, non particupation is practically impossible. Either you're free by work and ownership - or you starve.

You mean a the free trade system that pilgrims and native indians did? That could be good. It would highlight people's specialties and talents.

 

Lol. 

[Blarghagh]

I have never watched CNN, so clearly not if I know about it.

[Chilloutman]

like its matter, what matter is if information provided was true or not and if it was used or not

[Blarghagh]

I don't really care all that much, I just think it's funny that Donny Jr just tweeted it out and Trump's getting **** over e-mails after all this whining about Hillary's e-mails. (I'm not a Hillary supporter either.)

[Namutree]

I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference".

Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign.

Why this collusion doesn't count?

Was Nigel Farage a part of the UK government at the time?

[Blarghagh]

Eh, colluding with somebody that incompetent can only have hurt Trump. He can collude with manual breathers all he wants. :D

Edited July 12, 2017 by TrueNeutral