Lucky Star Shrine Forums
 
Go Back   Lucky Star Shrine Forums > General > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2017, 06:51 AM   #271
Thane of Cawdor
Yuri connoisseur advisor
 
Thane of Cawdor's Avatar
 
You say America isn't big enough to take on the world ourselves? Um, yes we are. We have and we did. America is still the grandstand marketplace for the world, even now. And I would love to see China step up on the global emissions, a few years ago when my dad was in Shanghai, lots of factories there don't have emission standards...at all. If we severed trade with China, America would survive, China would not, and yes I would bet on that.

The problem with stuff like the Obama administration is that he was a follower. "Europe does this, we must join in." America didn't become the dominant global player by being a sheep, we did it by leading. And though other countries may have their big 3 for their auto markets, their Hollywoods, etc, in a true global marketplace countries are law-enforcement areas and that's about it. One marketplace for specialization, and if the Chinese people wanna have the American dream so to speak, they're cheap labor is going to go away, and if that ever crashes, Apple just might bring FoxConn to the US. I see their market as a bubble and if they are to become capitalist, theres gonna be a crash first. They claim they're cranking out more engineers and doctors. This is when the US government is getting in the way of our own progress, and I for one think this doctor cap we have here needs to go. Same way Uber cheated the taxi cartel out of its business (the same number of taxis existed in NYC decades ago, yeah, really). So if youre seeing my point, the american goverment needs to work to support our economy, not be an obstacle. Want cheaper gas? Let's use our own oil and stop buying from other countries, and stop worrying about oil running out. By the time it does we'll need so little we can use our electric flying cars. So if you fellas in Canada wanna join in the reduced overhead, lowered taxes and broken medical system, all you need to do is sell off Quebec and become states. Then you can come to california and we'll tap your oil and all will be well.

I forgot where my point was going like ten minutes ago, im goin to bed, message me tomorrow orsomething.
__________________
Thrice banned
Spoiler: show
Thane of Cawdor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 01:30 PM   #272
Kid Charlemagne
Antique Flatulence
 
Kid Charlemagne's Avatar
 
Location : The Arkanshire
"yeah, let me school you younguns on some more business in the political thread"

Uh, no, we did NOT take on the world by ourselves.

We beat the Axis as a major partner in a globe-girdling coalition.

We won the Cold War in much the same fashion, except the open warfare took place at a lower level of intensity, as the nuclear balance dictated.

The rest of Thane's last comment is standard wingnut derponomics, and I don't feel like dignifying it with a response.

EDIT: Oh wait, this deals with the tax bill:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ular-tax-bill/

Meanwhile, the GOP continues to ruin our country's position as a leader in science:
https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/...ientific-base/

Remember science?

THE FOUNDATION OF ALL POWER AND PROSPERITY IN THE MODERN WORLD?

Thanks to conservative economic, political, and social "thinking", science is slowly dying in the USA.

When the moderate liberals of the 1930s-60s were running this country, we kicked fascist @$$ and put men on the f***ing MOON.

What greatness the USA retains is the legacy of liberalism, not the work of the selfish McDucks, the McDucks' hired politicians and talking heads, and the Stupid White Folks who voted for and otherwise unwittingly cut their own throats for the greater glory of the McDuck Elite (and Mommie Dearest Russia, whose leader and minions found a way to hijack the McDuck Brainwashing Machine for the greater glory of Mommie Dearest Russia in 2016).

Disclosure: I come from the tribe of Stupid White Folks, but glory to the Ascended Madoka, I somehow evolved beyond it.

Selah.
__________________

IF YOUR DERP LASTS LONGER THAN 4 HOURS, SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION.

Last edited by Kid Charlemagne; 12-17-2017 at 07:18 PM.
Kid Charlemagne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 08:01 PM   #273
kirant
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
You say America isn't big enough to take on the world ourselves? Um, yes we are. We have and we did.
You haven't, and you aren't.

The international wars you conducted on a full-time scale are WWI and WWII.

- In WWI, you were on a side likely to eventually win (with many even joking to this day that you waited until you could "pick a winning side").

- In WWII, the war was primarily on the eastern front, not the western. That is to say, they key battles were primarily Soviet/USA. What the USA primarily did was add in material support.

So, no, you've never taken on the world and won. Maybe if you went on a war of expansion ala WWII's Germany or Japan and come out on top, you might. But no single war can be attributed exclusively to "USA v World: USA wins".

As for right now, I would doubt it as well. The USA has the strongest military force, yes. However, strongest doesn't equate to majority. The USA's primary advantage is its ability to isolate itself. Its only neighbours are friendly Canada and Mexico. If the USA shipped their troops off to a foreign land without the protection of their oceans and their neighbours, things get a lot dicier.

In simple terms, I don't see a way you can take on the world and win. Take on the world and not lose, sure. The USA geographically is too large to really conquer with such a strong military presence. But to beat everyone in a neutral battleground? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
The problem with stuff like the Obama administration is that he was a follower. "Europe does this, we must join in." America didn't become the dominant global player by being a sheep, we did it by leading.
You became a global player by not getting bombed 9 ways to Sunday. The other current world powers were either a century behind the times (China), playing catch up (Japan), or were getting torn apart by war (all of Europe, Russia).

Obama's administration did a lot of lip service but primarily carried the country line. In actuality, he ended up being very much a lame duck for 6 years due to the fact that he had a Republican Congress make moves he'd disagree with (thereby nothing getting done). What he did take a role on internationally was carbon emissions changes.

Most of Obama's best work was actually internal: increased oil production means you import less Saudi oil. Dealing the coup de grace against the coal industry just accelerates shift off of an already dying industry. All his biggest moves were internal, not making changes to USA tone on an international stage (where it was shown he wasn't the strongest at forcing the USA either - see him get outmanoeuvred by Russia to make Russia look like peace brokers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
One marketplace for specialization, and if the Chinese people wanna have the American dream so to speak, they're cheap labor is going to go away, and if that ever crashes, Apple just might bring FoxConn to the US.
The scary news for you is that China is already working on that.

Their focus under Xi Jinping has been to build up their internal economy and remove themselves from the labour market exclusively. To mixed results, mind you, but I would say 20-30 years and the Chinese country will have built itself up from being the world's factory into a force.

So the key is to figure out where you want the USA to be when that day comes. Maybe the Chinese have a political revolution before then (I mean, I've predicted for a while that they'll demand more democratic governance when the economy stops growing at this rate). But do you want to secede international influence to China or do you want to hold onto it yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
I see their market as a bubble and if they are to become capitalist, theres gonna be a crash first.
China is a mix of capitalism and command economy. They are already in the transition to becoming more and more capitalist.

What we must realize is that they are a communist society in name only. They are much closer to one-party rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
This is when the US government is getting in the way of our own progress, and I for one think this doctor cap we have here needs to go.
I think the bigger loss is your lack of interest in the sciences.

The USA as a populace isn't as heavily interested in technology and science as China. China heavily lauds such achievements and their space program is a huge testament to it. I suspect they will catch up and beat NASA in fairly short order given that NASA's budget and focus has been cut to "send up a few probes to Mars" recently. There are also indications that the USA will fall behind in biotech as early as the mid-2020s.

Really, you're seeing the world catch up to the USA and the USA must realize that being the dominant power in everything (as oppose to one of two or three major players) was simply borrowed time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
So if youre seeing my point, the american goverment needs to work to support our economy, not be an obstacle.
Having a better economy is always nice to have, but the question is at what cost.

Do you want a better economy even if most of the money is still in the hands of billionaires and (for sake of argument) doesn't "trickle down"?

Do you want one even if it means that you have citizens living with diseases associated with hilariously unsanitary conditions only seen in mostly developing nations (see: rural Alabama)?

Do you want a 10% better economy even if it means you're standing on your own internationally and nobody really wants to talk to you anymore and instead involves the EU or China in talks?

These are all interesting questions worth asking and I think seeing Trump play them out in real life should force people to think long and hard about where they want the USA to land in the future...because I think the answer for most countries so far has been "we're fine dealing with people other than the USA if they're going to back out".

Trudeau has begun setting up negotiations with China, the UK is looking at NAFTA (with or without the USA's noise about leaving the area), TPP is still planning to go through...the USA is simply a partner people are willing to live without.

Of course, if the USA is your whole world, then the answers are obvious (inflate the USA economy). But it also means that the stereotype of complete ignorance of where you stand internationally becomes fairly true. And the model of the Qing dynasty in China and the ass kicking they got during the Opium Wars becomes familiar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Want cheaper gas? Let's use our own oil and stop buying from other countries, and stop worrying about oil running out.
As I said before, this is something Obama actually focused on. He spent 8 years trying to improve the USA's internal oil market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
So if you fellas in Canada wanna join in the reduced overhead, lowered taxes and broken medical system, all you need to do is sell off Quebec and become states. Then you can come to california and we'll tap your oil and all will be well.
Ha...broken medical system in the USA is right. With or without the ACA, your country is a mess healthcare wise. Friendly to business maybe...but an absolute train wreck for its citizens. You treat it as a good and not a human right to receive decent medical care (as does Canada when it comes to prescription medication...something which also feels out of date as the rest of the world has healthcare which pays for prescriptions).

I think we're fine living at arm's length. Our country has its own issues (Trudeau is only passable in internal politics (and running a budget bleeding money similar to your pre-2009 recession levels), we're having an increasingly xenophobic sentiment in rural areas, a lack of clear rules in aboriginal negotiations makes it hard to ship out fossil fuels in any direct, and we're still heavily reliant on a resource economy), but I think I'd be fine staying out of your quagmire.

Things are simply better put together at the federal level...even if we all pretty much hate our first past the post voting system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
Meanwhile, the GOP continues to ruin our country's position as a leader in science:
https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/...ientific-base/

Remember science?
Ha...I mentioned this earlier in much harsher tones. It's downright Orwellian and a way for the current Republican administration to control the debate.

Look. My country hasn't done nice things either. Our previous Conservative Prime Minister suppressed reports on climate change which his party felt went against their doctrine. However, this is a couple steps more sinister in nature to attempt to undermine CDC arguments by preventing the use of "evidence based" and requiring use of much vaguer terms.

It also feels quite silly that the presidential candidate who took pride in being able to say whatever the hell he wanted decides to prevent the CDC from speaking the way it wants.
__________________

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 12-17-2017 at 08:05 PM.
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 11:22 PM   #274
kirant
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
Incidentally, did anybody else remember that posts have character limits? I didn't.

Anyways, there's a rumour going around (and picking up steam) that Trump will seek an end to Mueller's investigation on the 22nd (this Friday). This would coincide with the same time he likely will sign his tax reform assuming it passes both House and Senate in the current scheduled timeline. So I can see the story going down as "Trump signs tax reform" and hopefully sneak through "Mueller terminated" under the radar of Christmas break.

Many people have pointed out that this would instill a constitutional crisis as Trump doesn't have the power to do so himself (well, legally). That is to say he can't say "well, I'm under investigation...BUT let's go end that."

A nice summary of it is below in the spoiler from attorney and professor of law Seth Abramson. Consider it "how to handle constitutional crises 101" in case the worst happens.


Here's a short version of his comments (long story short - it'll get ugly very quickly). Bold is my highlights.

Spoiler: show
Rosenstein just made clear, via Congressional testimony, that he won't fire Mueller without cause, and presently sees no cause to do so. What this means is that Trump would have to fire Rosenstein in order to rid himself of Mueller. But Trump may elect more dangerous options. Trump knows firing Rosenstein and ordering Rachel Brand (next up at DOJ) to fire Mueller is a fool's errand: first, because Brand would likely refuse, as Mueller has done nothing to warrant being fired; second, because she's read history books—she knows this is Nixonian graft. While Trump could eventually find someone at DOJ to fire Mueller—he can just keep firing attorneys until he gets a stooge to do his bidding as the late Robert Bork did for Nixon—he could also seek recourse in an executive order he issued that arguably lets him name his own AG. Or, he could select the most dangerous option—one Nixon himself executed once Cox was gone. That would be declaring himself able to fire Mueller and then sending federal law enforcement officers to remove Bob Mueller and his agents from their office and lock down the premises. If Trump chooses Option A—firing everyone until he finds a stooge—it'll take many days and many firings and be a fiasco; Option B (using his own executive order) is substantially easier; whereas Option C could lead to some harrowing televised scenes of forcible federal action. Mueller is a good man; his whole his biography confirms it. He could acquiesce to being fired to avoid a fracture in the rule of law; he could seek a court injunction to prevent his firing; he could contact Congressional allies and pray a bill is passed to prevent his firing.

Here's what we know: Trump doesn't have the power to fire Mueller, and Rosenstein won't do it. Trump arguably has the power to install an AG who will fire Mueller and Congress arguably has the power to pass a bill to stop it. Mueller will try to protect America's rule of law. One other thing is clear: Congressional Republicans lack the will—or, in the House, the interest—to stand up to Trump should he overturn the rule of law. That said, Democrats would only need a small number of Republican allies in the two houses of Congress to protect Mueller.

Trump is guilty of everything people believe him guilty of; all the evidence establishes it. So we must predict his actions with that in mind. This is a man who conspired with the Russians to steal an election, and now holds the reins of power at the seat of power he stole. The rumors over the past few days are that Kushner may soon be indicted; certainly, Mueller asking Kushner to answer questions on what Flynn said to him at a time Mueller knew—but Kushner didn't—Flynn was cooperating suggests Mueller has gotten Kushner to incriminate himself. The point is that Trump believes—rightly or not—this investigation is about to reach another of his right-hand men (two are already charged), this one a family member. And Trump knows he is guilty. And he's not emotionally well. So it's not clear what Trump is willing to do. The best-case scenario here: Trump keeps firing people at the DOJ—all of whom refuse to do his illegal bidding—until he runs out of political capital in Congress. The worst-case scenario: Trump uses federal agents to physically remove Mueller and his team from their offices.

The second best-case scenario: this ends up in the courts—eventually SCOTUS—where we can assume (or at least pray) rule of law will prevail. The second worst-case scenario: Trump installs his own AG, who then fires Mueller, ending actual (but preserving apparent) rule of law. The middle-case scenarios are harder to see—but involve tepid Congressional action to move the probe forward with a new Trump-friendly Special Counsel, leading to a scam investigation; or, Congress ends the probe and creates its own political probe to (sort-of) "investigate." Understand that *all* of these scenarios *except* the unfettered continuation of the Mueller probe are a significant blow against the rule of law in America, to the point that Trump becomes as much a monarch as a president—in actuality above the normal operation of our laws. Any American who thinks there's even a 1% chance Trump conspired with our foes should want that 1% possibility 100% investigated. The only reason to want the Mueller probe ended entirely is because you want Donald Trump to reign over America as a king rather than a president.

What all this means is that if Trump takes *any* action against Mueller, our rule of law is *gravely* threatened. Even if you think Mueller's work needs careful oversight, there's already a *Trump appointee*—Rosenstein—who's doing that and certifies the probe has been honest. So all Americans, no matter their political stripe or what chance you think there is that Trump is guilty—1% or 90%—should do what Americans did during the Watergate Era if Trump fires Mueller: take to the streets and swarm Congress' phone lines until rule of law is restored. If this happens, you can expect peaceful disruptions in American life for *some time*. Mass protests that block highways and buildings and shut down parts of cities; mass walkouts from jobs and schools; a media atmosphere in which only one story—this one—can be or is covered. The key here is that the protests must not and cannot stop until rule of law is restored: a Mueller investigation, overseen (as now) by Trump appointee Rosenstein, which has unfettered access to evidence and witnesses in an effort to find the truth—and justice—for Americans.

Because firing Mueller would shake the foundations of American law and democracy to their core, we would expect *dramatic* market volatility for the entirety of the crisis. Likewise, we would expect a leaky White House and Congress to go from "leaky" to a veritable *deluge*.


There's a reasonable chance this won't happen. Rumour are rumours after all. However, those of you in the USA should approach the possibility with the same grave seriousness that it sounds like: a direct and grave danger to actually operating the way your constitution asks you.

Edit - And...Trump is saying he isn't considering firing. So...yay...hearsay and conjecture away!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...edName=topNews
__________________

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 12-18-2017 at 12:07 AM.
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2017, 06:43 AM   #275
Thane of Cawdor
Yuri connoisseur advisor
 
Thane of Cawdor's Avatar
 
Do you want a better economy even if most of the money is still in the hands of billionaires and (for sake of argument) doesn't "trickle down"?

Yes, trickle down is NOT a theory, dunno who is teaching you guys but trickle down IS HOW our country works, there is no discussion, its reality, if billionaires had their money literally sit under their matresses itd be stagnant but it doesn't, it sits in banks who loan it out for people like you and me wanting mortages to buy our houses. You guys need to take a macro and microeconomics course, trickle down economics is as real as gravity, calling it a theory that's not true is, wel wrong.

Do you want one even if it means that you have citizens living with diseases associated with hilariously unsanitary conditions only seen in mostly developing nations (see: rural Alabama)?

That is a logical fallicy, i forget if its slippery slope, or whatever else they call it but you know you're assuming far too quickly.

Do you want a 10% better economy even if it means you're standing on your own internationally and nobody really wants to talk to you anymore and instead involves the EU or China in talks?

YES. Once again, the world is not a company baseball game where USA isnt picked and we're gonna go mope. If we had a world of extreme isolationism, America would live, other countries arent so well. Look at your own country, kirant. Canada is super nationalist, bordering fascist. Requirements that radio and TV play X percent canadian made music and tv? what if it turns out your country is good at making technology and you should specialize in that, would ya listen to crummy TV stations just cause its canadian, or listen to american and european tv thats better. Globalization leads to specialization, sometimes by nation. That's why tropical countries produce foods that are better grown there and countries like america are globally more white collar than other countries. Skilled labor, ie china builds, america manages. thats one view of the world whether ya like it or not, and my point yesterday was if china wants to be like us they're gonna have to find another country for cheap manual labor. If you want this 'slave labor' to end globally, then prices of shit are gonna go up and we might start becoming more 'relatively' blue collar in america again. Remember this is from a global trade economy viewpoint.

sorry to sound harsh but ya guy's arent getting it, especially when people say the trickle down of money isn't true. Holy cow. Do you think billionaires build their own houses? No they pay companies to who contract to builders who subcontract to carpenters, why is this so hard to understand? Double the billionaires, double the grown, double the need for workers, unemployment goes DOWN, us blue collar people make more money, i don't think I can make this any simpler, this IS how america works, its not some myth, it happens every day.
__________________
Thrice banned
Spoiler: show
Thane of Cawdor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2017, 08:59 AM   #276
kirant
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Yes, trickle down is NOT a theory, dunno who is teaching you guys but trickle down IS HOW our country works, there is no discussion, its reality,
It's a theory in the sense that there isn't definitive proof. For every example you have of Reagan's run, you have W Bush (where virtually all the money stuck with the billionaires - income to the top 20% got 80% boost in income, bottom 20% got 6% boost).

Similarly, for every example of The New Deal or Obama steering the USA with stimulus better than the EU's austerity, you have Japan's lost (two) decades.

Simply put, we have data points with lots of errors in them or factors which do not fit into a traditional model. If we believed traditional economics models, the USA should have lost a tonne of value after quantitative easing was done in the USA during the recession. Yet here we are with the dollar as everybody's favourite currency.

Theory doesn't match reality and reality hasn't given us terrific evidence.

We're a group of apes with smartphones which can't even predict next week's weather effectively let alone something as complex as the economic process of billions of minds, many irrational. To claim we know perfectly how things work is silly.

Ultimately, I sit on this the same way I sit on reductionist formulae (such as E = mc^2): it's a nice way to simplify the matter but isn't complex enough to fit the end goal. I think we sit at a point where you need to consider both supply and demand side economics. Living off one and ignoring the other will fail.

(To finish the formula above, it actually is E = (mc^2)/((1-(v/c)^2)^0.5). The former is much easier to explain, but the latter gets you a better answer)

I read it once before, and I think this is the best answer I can give anybody who lives and breathes a single theory:

"Real life isn't a textbook problem. You can't assume demand/supply is constant and therefore assume that all problems can be solved by stimulating supply/demand."

Do some parts of both theories work? Yeah. For sure. That said, each basic school of thought simplifies the matter far too much to rely on fully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
You guys need to take a macro and microeconomics course, trickle down economics is as real as gravity, calling it a theory that's not true is, wel wrong.
Funny. Because my undergraduate transcript says I have both macroeconomics and microeconomics credits.

(Side note: proclaiming you know ANYTHING based off those courses is pretty sad. Claiming you know the economics of the world based on these is like saying you know psychology after your first class of psychology...which is all Freud)

Trickle-down economics is simply a possible road map. It is theorized to work in environments with high sets of assumptions (such as perfectly rational individuals who wish to maximize their profits, set in a world where investment directly leads to jobs).

Lots of that doesn't exist today. Lots of money, instead of heading into a bank or being spent on factories, is being spent on goods. They spend money on fancy cars, real estate, or buy stocks. Or maybe they stuff it away in a tax haven, away from banks which would invest in the nation of interest (which, according to the Panama and Paradise papers, is a LOT of the money).

These things don't have a direct lead to jobs in the country. Maybe implicit leads (such as stocks giving the company further money to buy something the company desperately needs), sure. But nothing as direct as when the concept was developed.

Not to mention the general irrationality of humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
That is a logical fallicy, i forget if its slippery slope, or whatever else they call it but you know you're assuming far too quickly.
Actually, it's the world you're living in. The UN literally just sent a person there to investigate and found hookworm, which is found in unsanitary conditions...typically developing nations.

http://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-p...-racism-743601

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
If we had a world of extreme isolationism, America would live, other countries arent so well.
The prognosis of isolationist states is very poor.

China went into isolation one of the most technologically powerful nations in the world. When it came out? It was so poor and broken that it it took a century to get back to normal. Japan tried and was so far behind that all it took was USA knocking on its door to get the government blown apart.

The economic dangers of being isolationist are obvious so I'm sure you don't need those explained to you. Sure, you'll live. But you'll be far better off being part of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Look at your own country, kirant. Canada is super nationalist, bordering fascist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Requirements that radio and TV play X percent canadian made music and tv? what if it turns out your country is good at making technology and you should specialize in that, would ya listen to crummy TV stations just cause its canadian, or listen to american and european tv thats better.
Simple answer: Canada is fine accepting we're a small part of the world but we also wish to keep our own industries alive.

Do I defend CRTC limitations? Not entirely. It's a move to make an uneven playing field and shares some of the same silliness as Quebec's language laws. On the other hand, I also realize that it allows Canadians to have a fighting chance to have a product to present to Canadians. And, honestly, that's what most of it is. It's, shocking to you I'm sure, not actually "rah rah" for Canada but instead something quirky that, if you showed it to a friend from outside the country, 9/10 times would leave them confused and you entertained.

Give Good Cop, Bon Cop a watch. It's an excellent example of this. Or even better yet, listen to The Tragically Hip. The lyrics of their songs are Canadian influenced. Our little secret from the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Skilled labor, ie china builds, america manages.
If you believe this for too long, you're in a hell of a lot of trouble.

China is increasingly growing a white-collar population (to the point where there is incredibly strong competition for those positions). This is why China has focused more and more on an internal economy.

Simply put: the dangers in thinking this way occur if you presume it'll stay the same. China has no interest in being a labour facility anymore and is acting to push themselves to a different role. Thinking they are content with it will only lead to you being out of place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
If you want this 'slave labor' to end globally, then prices of shit are gonna go up and we might start becoming more 'relatively' blue collar in america again. Remember this is from a global trade economy viewpoint.
And I think you should prepare for sticker shock.

The world is changing and everybody wants to have the same white-collar group. And there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone. Even white-collar jobs are vanishing as automation takes over. Machines are taking over. We've seen it in the auto industry and we'll see it elsewhere.

It's questions like these which cause you to ask questions like basic income or a possible future where few get employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
sorry to sound harsh but ya guy's arent getting it, especially when people say the trickle down of money isn't true.
Or maybe you should stop and do research. You repeat information from an entry level college/university course without looking outside to see how the theories you learned actually occur in practice.

I did a very simple Q&A with a few people I know years ago (one is working on a CFA, one is an MBA, and a couple are in Texas/from Texas who have held high positions in large companies). The simple question of "is the economic debate of Keynsian/Classic economics answered" was a resounding no. They repeated the same points I made above: there is so much noise and possible questions as to why each case occurred that you can't simply place it on one point or another.

Sure, they may favour one over the other (one of them absolutely loved the idea of classical economics), but they weren't so conceited as to proclaim that it was the only possible answer and believing anything else was like saying 2+2 equalled 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Double the billionaires, double the grown, double the need for workers, unemployment goes DOWN, us blue collar people make more money, i don't think I can make this any simpler, this IS how america works, its not some myth, it happens every day.
See above: the money simply doesn't always stay in the loop. It exits to other countries, gets locked into assets which don't generate jobs, or gets put in places which don't directly invest in the country of interest.

Tax havens are a huge loophole to classic economic thought.
__________________

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 12-18-2017 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Screwed up the formula
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2017, 04:53 AM   #277
Thane of Cawdor
Yuri connoisseur advisor
 
Thane of Cawdor's Avatar
 
One, i didnt get your bender laughing joke, did you agree or not? I honestly couldnt tell.

And lastly, you said:

It's a theory in the sense that there isn't definitive proof. For every example you have of Reagan's run, you have W Bush (where virtually all the money stuck with the billionaires - income to the top 20% got 80% boost in income, bottom 20% got 6% boost).

THANK you you just proved me right. How are you not seeing it in front of your face? More money, the top got a boost in income, so did the bottom. IE everybody got more money due to the introduction of more money. See? That's it! Ya finally got it. Then you go onto call it a theory while you just proved it right here, I don't understand why you can't see the numbers, need I draw you a graph or should I draw pictures with actual dollar bills in it.

Yes, I have a business degree in this field. This is not classroom theories like negative-mass theories of time travel, this is how the velocity of money actually occurs. I'm in the business world, I run a small personal business of my own, I watch the stock markets from time to time, you can literally watch the money trickle down and read about it in the news, you just demonstrated it yourself, what may I explain for you to understand?
__________________
Thrice banned
Spoiler: show
Thane of Cawdor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2017, 08:06 AM   #278
kirant
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
One, i didnt get your bender laughing joke, did you agree or not? I honestly couldnt tell.
It's laughing at, not with, you.

The joke (which kind of ruins it when you have to spell it out), is that an initial reading of what you posted was a joke which I found funny. But when I realize what you're saying is attempt at a serious point, it made it even funnier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
THANK you you just proved me right. How are you not seeing it in front of your face?
The question wasn't whether it grew the economy at all. If the economy grew at all, it is likely that everybody would see something at the very least.

The question is if the money continues to cycle and improve lives effectively. That is, did the money really "trickle down" and help the average person? We know the top earners will be fine.

And the answer in W Bush's case is "not really". The money primarily stuck with the highest earners.

(Edit - Incidentally, I was reading the numbers incorrectly. The values above of 80% and 6% were of the 1979 to 2008 era. Under Bush's era, while trying to ignore the buildup to the housing bubble (which saw a huge spike, then drop in everybody's income) was about 5% above their 1979 inflation adjusted income. The middle 3/5s saw similar growth while the top 20% saw about 15-20% growth. The top 1% saw their income go from 100% above the 1979 level to 250%.

The same numbers suggest little to no growth during the 2008-2012 period, as should be expected as those were the years of recession/recovery from recession. The only groups to see growth in income during this period were the top 20% and top 1%. The single value they have for the 2013 year seems to indicate "business as normal" though. I can link is you're curious about parsing data.)

A more detailed and rigorous answer states that the share of the USA's economy has mostly been going to the hands of the top 1% in the USA as stated by CBO publications. Everyone else is getting a little, but the money is doing more "pooling up" than "trickling down".

In fact, the biggest takeaway from CBO publications is that the % of money owned by the top 1% is growing larger and larger. That is, if everything grew (let's say) 10%, the top 1% are seeing 15-20% growth while the rest of your country sees 2-3%.

So in those cases, the question becomes "are you happy with your little piece of the pie? If everything in the economy grows 10%, are you happy seeing someone wealthy go from a take home salary of 100 to 120 million annually while you see a gain from 40 to 41k?

Or would you prefer a nation grow more evenly? That is, if the billionaire went from 100 million to 110, you'd go from 40 to 44k.

And if you wish to claim that the above isn't accurate, I do not see solid evidence that one school of thought really leads to better growth than another school of thought.

(The key word is "better". You can grow the economy by belief in Classic or Keynesian thought. The question is if you can find a statistical way to point out that one grows an economy faster. That has been my main point of contention since the beginning: "this is a topic without a real definitive answer". Both could be valid. Both could be invalid. One could be and other one not.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
IE everybody got more money due to the introduction of more money. See? That's it! Ya finally got it.
If we use the same arguments, then all of Obama's economic policies work too.

If it's literally just "income grew", then inflation-adjusted income grew under Obama as well as Bush.

So does that mean that Keynesian theories work too?

There's nothing in the data that "proves" on school of thought and eliminates the other. We're at a point where, going by data, both have valid arguments.

And the reality is, both do. Reagan provided economists lots to think about. At the same time, so did Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Then you go onto call it a theory while you just proved it right here, I don't understand why you can't see the numbers, need I draw you a graph or should I draw pictures with actual dollar bills in it.
Because I didn't say that it's impossible to grow the economy in that way.

But go ahead. Humour me and make the graph. I want to see your paint or photoshop skills.
__________________

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 12-19-2017 at 10:21 PM.
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2017, 10:16 PM   #279
Thane of Cawdor
Yuri connoisseur advisor
 
Thane of Cawdor's Avatar
 
I think I finally get you.

You are confusing "trickle down" with "distribution of wealth."

As RATIONAL thinking in economics as its dubbed, if a millionaire made an extra 10 million and you made an extra 4k one year, by rational economic thinking you should want to make the extra money, regardless if the millionaire makes more or less money, no matter how much more or less.

As companies like Amazon and Walmart grow, the rich will continue to break new records of monetary wealth. But the rest of us benefit too (trickle down.) What you were hoping for is something like EVERYONE makes $4k a year more, and with the exception of maybe a communist lifestyle, that doesnt happen, not in the world of capitalism.

I know what KC would love is for him to make more money and the millionaires to make the same, if not less. That's your robin hood right there, and such acts are out of just that, acts. maybe an act of kindness. You know Bill Gates donates like a billion a year to charities, that is a direct counter to distribution of wealth, and if you ask me, as the rich get richer, there are more rich people who either out of generosity or retirement or whatever that will do these acts. Most acts of charity are against the typical distribution of wealth, but understand that if our new tax law somehow drew twice the number of rich people in america, you then have a higher chance of more of them donating money. Therefore in that case, trickle down also applies. More money in america, more money to the middle and lower class.

Money aside, one could make an agreement of 'overall' condition in america. Some say, based on the gauge they want to use, americans may have been happier in the 70s. Given disco, yeah maybe (thats a joke, laugh KC you were around for it and I wasnt.)
Some say life was better in the 50s, cause a man worked, a women stayed home and didnt need a formal job. Better maybe for the white people, blacks might not agree - as you can of course guess why.

But given 50 or 60 years ago, I'll use my mom as an example. She grew up in the projects. However if you were to translate total wealth by distribution, the poverty line (as is typically classed as the bottom 10 percent), then she now is living the same RELATIVE lifestyle, relative to the total economy and districbution of wealth as youd call it. Now she doesn't quite live in a dump anymore, you can go calculate the math. But for example I grew up with air conditioning, in my house and my car, she did not. I have never used an outhouse, have never needed candles for light and damn near every kid over 10 in america has a smartphone- a portable touchescreen computer with global internet access. Given those factors, the quality of life has gone up. Someone might be making LESS relative to the country now opposed to 60 years ago but none of us wanna give up our smartphones (ive bought old luxury cars with a/c, no leaks, leather seats for less than the price of an iPhone).

So maybe the distribution of wealth has spread. But the bottom are doing better, the middle are doing better, the top are doing better.

As for trickle down economics, I hope this finally clicks with you.
__________________
Thrice banned
Spoiler: show
Thane of Cawdor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2017, 11:43 PM   #280
kirant
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
I'll put the "politics" politics part of my post up here first. It's far more important than the rest.


Anyways, I'll try to bring this back to "actual politics" politics

USA Tax Code 101: New Tax Codes and You

Spoiler: show
So if you live in the USA, you've probably realized you have a new tax code by now.

Here are some of the key points for individuals (starting in 2018 - so your filing that you'll do in 2019):
- Personal income tax has temporarily dropped for all brackets (1-3% dependent on the bracket you speak of).
-- This will occur for 8 years and will come back to their current levels at the end of 2025 (close to coinciding with, should he get there, Trump's final years of office).
- Alimony is now taxed
- Child tax credits have permanently doubled to $2000.
- Standard deductions have almost doubled
- To prepare for a gutting of a key tenant in the ACA, the deductibles for health care will increase until 2019
- There is no longer a fine for not obtaining healthcare (the ACA's confusing way of trying to enforce insurance)

If you are wealthy, the following has also changed:
- The Alternative Minimum Tax deductions for individuals has increased. That is, your tax has dropped if you earn a tonne of money
- Inheritance tax has raised to a deduction of 10 million.

If you're a company, the following has changed:
- You can drill for oil in the Alaska Wildlife National Reserve
- Clean energy tax credits remain
- There is no such thing as the Minimum Alternative Tax anymore. In other words, your tax just went down immensely.
- Speaking of tax breaks, your tax is now 21% instead of 35%
- You can write off 100% of a plant instantly.

If you're a University or College, the following has changed:
- If you have more than $500,000 per student in investment income, you will now be taxed 1.4%

The most surprising part of the bill to me was the complete inability for Trump to remove carried interest. Recall this is one of the very few things him and Clinton both agreed on. A spokesman for Trump was on the news right after blasting Congress for not removing it.

A broken promise by Trump, which is bad if you like simplicity, is that this doesn't simplify the tax code at all really. It cuts taxes but doesn't make it so simple you (in his words) could do it on a postcard.

---

If you're curious how much you'll save, you can find out how much you'll likely save using the below link which did the math on a bunch of real life scenarios:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...alculator.html

Some basic numbers (assuming you take the standard deductions, kids is defined as <18)):
- If you're earning the median household individual USA salary (31 000) and living alone with no kids, you'll save about $35/month ($440/year, 1.5% less income lost).
- If you're a married couple earning the median household income (60 000) and live with 2 kids, you'll save about $140/month ($1,680/year, 2.8% less income lost).
-- If you don't have kids and are single at this income, you save about $120/month ($1,480/year, 2.5% less income lost)
- If you're a married couple with a shared income of 300,000 and have two kids, you'll save about $1,333/month ($16,000/year, 5.3% income lost)

----

Not much I can say on this that I haven't before. It's been a fairly cynical process (being more of a "tyranny by majority" that I see in Canada more than the bipartisan work I hope to see in the USA) where there were almost no debates or public hearings to allow feedback. At a 30% approval rating (and dropping it seems), I don't think it nets the Republicans many votes and might be only a minor rally in the short term in approval ratings for Trump and the party as a whole.

It's also absolutely silly watching people constantly needing to find ways to argue it's budget neutral in order to meet the Byrd rules (which allow for 50 votes in Senate to pass as oppose to 60).


-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
You are confusing "trickle down" with "distribution of wealth."
Which I think is a fair argument to have. Does it really help the USA and the majority of citizens if you go to the extreme end? That is, 100% of growth goes to a handful of individuals while, despite economic growth, the actual conditions of its citizens have not changed one iota?

The key aspect of "trickle down" I think is that wealth at some point, you know, moves down. It's the same issue I see in the opposite theory ("trickle up"): sure the money goes there, but does it effectively go to another group?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
As RATIONAL thinking in economics as its dubbed, if a millionaire made an extra 10 million and you made an extra 4k one year, by rational economic thinking you should want to make the extra money, regardless if the millionaire makes more or less money, no matter how much more or less.
But both scenarios I outlined have you gaining. The question isn't "are you happy with getting money" but "are you happy getting money in an uneven distribution of wealth"?

Let's favour the the concept of inequality helping out a little more and let uneven distribution lead to higher growth (somehow). Consider the two scenarios:

In case 1:
- Person A goes from 100 million to 125 a year
- Person B goes from 40k to 41.5k a year

In case 2:
- Person A goes from 100 million to 110 a year
- Person B goes from 40k to 44k a year

Which one is a preferred system for the nation? Case 1, giving the benefit of the doubt to the system of uneven distribution and suggests higher growth for the nation but mostly in the hands of a few people (with Person A become more and more dominant in the economy than Person B). Case 2 retains the same relative wealth inequality (Person B holding ~0.4% of the income of the two before and after growth) and leaves Person A just as powerful as before (now Person B is down to ~0.35%).

But now let's make this a little more realistic and suggest that there are 60 people like Person B which all get the same benefits. Which scenario sounds better then?

Then we could suggest a time aspect, such that the % growth is constant. After 5 years, would you prefer:

Case 1: Person A earns 305 million, Person B (and all people like Person B) earns 48k
Case 2: Person A earns 145 million, Person B (and all people like Person B) earns 64k

And this would assume full take home. That is, this includes hiring for luxury purchases and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
What you were hoping for is something like EVERYONE makes $4k a year more, and with the exception of maybe a communist lifestyle, that doesnt happen, not in the world of capitalism.
What I hope for is a reasonable distribution with, as of right now, equal distributions of growth. If the economy grows 5%, everybody gains 5%.

That doesn't meant that everybody gets equal amounts of money. If you have way more money, you see bigger benefits.

What my biggest worry is that you're taking more of the wealth of the nation. That your "share" of the growth is taking a larger and larger % of what new values were just generated.

As is in the USA right now, while you're seeing okay growth annually, the % growth of the top earners (about 10%/year for the top 1% over their inflation adjusted 1979 values) are way outpacing everyone else (~1%/year for the bottom 80%). This is seen in multiple CBO reports where the % of the wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the 20% (owning 55% of the income in 1979 and now owning 70% of it).

So the ideal I would have is that 55% from 1979 stay closer to 55%...that is, in the pie metaphor people love, the pie has grown bigger but the % of the pie everybody gets remains the exact same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
You know Bill Gates donates like a billion a year to charities, that is a direct counter to distribution of wealth, and if you ask me, as the rich get richer, there are more rich people who either out of generosity or retirement or whatever that will do these acts.
I find Gates and Buffet appear to be exceptions. It is currently believed, while contested, that the wealthy are less generous than the poor with their money.

If the belief holds though, it leads to the notion that it may be better to just give the money to those in need as oppose to have a wealthy individual earn the money, then redistribute it.

(Citation for it being a contested notion: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rich...ous-than-poor/ )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Someone might be making LESS relative to the country now opposed to 60 years ago but none of us wanna give up our smartphones (ive bought old luxury cars with a/c, no leaks, leather seats for less than the price of an iPhone).
Of course innovation and the growth of economies at a global scale will mean everybody lives a better life today. I don't think that was ever in question. I feel like that is a fairly self-explanatory statement.

The question worth asking is if we can steer the ship in a better direction and further improve things. Just because something is good or bad doesn't mean we can't find ways to improve it.
__________________

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 12-21-2017 at 12:25 AM. Reason: Used reddit formatting for a second
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Theme By : Companyturk