Republicans

[daishi5]

1. Wealth is finite, Economics is a zero sum game, the only added "wealth" is inflation and labor pool.

Oh dear spaghetti monster/god/supermodel in heaven please tell me this is sarcasm. My sarcasm meter is not going off, but at the same time the statement is so stupid that I cannot begin to believe this is honestly your belief.

From wikipedia:

zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

In other words, there would never be a trade that would benefit both parties at the same time. For one person to become richer someone else must be poorer. If we compare the total wealth of the world just 60 years ago, I am sure that we had less stuff. We had no computers, we had no cell phones, we had less cars, we had less food, we had less clothes, less people had heat and air conditioning.

Economics cannot be a zero sum game. It makes absolutely no sense to state it is "zero sum" in the vast wealth of experience we have regarding the world in the past several hundred years. It is a common fallacy to examine trade as if it were a zero sum game, I.E. rich countries must be rich because they stole from the countries that are now poor, but it is a fallacy. The benefits of trade have been understood for generations. If you want to base your argument for trade policies on the basis of "zero sum" I hope no one is dumb enough to listen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Republicans destroyed the country.

Bolded for truth

 

[dmcowen674]

This would cause goods to correct from their artificially low prices. Cost of living would rise, but so would employment to fill in the massive chinese manufacturing hole.

The only way for them to sell things to the US again would be to stop exploiting their people... What a novel idea! Also china imports about 1/3rd of what they export to us, and it is largely food and raw materials... If we begin actually making our own shit again we can use the excess raw materials.

The long and short of it... Prices would rise, however so would employment, and you'd have the benefit of a clean conscience...

Only one problem and reason that would never happen.

Rich Religious Republicans do not have a conscience.

 

[dmcowen674]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town.

You think you will stay in the U.S. or call another country home?

 

[daishi5]

Is it even theoretically possible for everyone to be a millionaire in today's dollars, i.e. discounting inflation? Is it really possible for everyone to earn the means to enjoy what most Americans would term an "upper-middle class" lifestyle?

Yes, today we are all living the equivalent or better of middle ages millionares in america. I believe it is say's law that basically states that consumption = production. What you seem to be defining as "millionaire" is defined by consumption. We can do that by increasing production. If I invent "super machine 12000" tomorrow, and it allows every person to increase their production by X1000 what they produce today, we would all be able to consume that much more as well. (We might have to start strip mining asteroids and a few planets for materials, but we could do it.)

The only limits of our ability to live better lives are resources, energy, and our ability to convert the former two into stuff that makes life better. We are currently orbiting a giant fusion reactor that produces so much energy we might as well call it infinite for the purpose of powering human endeavors (it is not cheap to harvest the energy, but it is there.) We have plenty of planets and asteroids in our solar system as well, and if we run out we could theoretically go and get it from other solar systems. The fact is we have almost limitless resources, most of it is way way way too expensive to harvest, but it is there. As we increase the ability of each person to do work, more of those resources and energy become efficient to use. So, the only limiting factor is how much "work" each person can do. Now, we can use robots and other automation to increase the amount of work per person.

 

[dmcowen674]

I hope I'm able to get out of here before it all goes south, but that remains to be seen.

I feel sorry for the poor bastards who cannot.

What country are you planning on going to?

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm not sure what's worse, the constant skepticism of companies in America from the left or the blind faith in companies from the right.

Republicans are not all bad people that want to see others suffer, despite what it may seem like on these forums. Democrats are not all tree-huggers, anti-capitalists that want to see everyone lifted to the same standard of living, despite what it may seem like on these forums.

Let's excuse those on the fringes, the extremists that really do fit the mold described above. In the realm of normalcy people generally want to see others succeed and be happy, healthy and safe in this country. The disagreement, that is argued to pathetic ad nauseum, is how this is achieved.

And so that's where we are. Free market solutions (to simplify it a bit) inevitably lead those more liberal-leaning folks to think it's all exploitation at the top. The reality is that these companies and their leaders (save for a few) have no conspiratorial plan to exploit anyone, and the fact that some are left disenfranchised is simply a consequence of private enterprise.

Insurance companies are not bad, nor are pharmaceutical companies.

The heart of the entrepreneurial spirit is first innovation, second profit;
take away either and you have nothing.

If there's an addressable market, you better believe someone will fill it.

Our country has lost its vision, and the parties that represent the people are largely the cause. The skepticism placed on corporate America from the left hurts just as much as the degradation thrown at our democratic President from the right.

I'm rambling and I have no real point. I say the same thing in all my posts, hoping for some balance. It's always a partisan issue for some. It's win-the-game-at-whatever-cost, and few even seem to understand the core philosophies upon which their reflexes are based.

In the words of an often inflammatory Neal Boortz: Americans hate freedom. It took me a while to really appreciate the truth in that, but it applies to republicans and democrats.

We have nothing because profit became number one thanks to Republicans.

 

[stateofbeasley]

How many jobs have poor people created? None.

How many taxes do poor people pay? None.

Those damned evil greedy rich folk. Damn them to hell.

The simple fact your arguments fails, time and time again, is because wealth is NOT finite. if I get more of the pie it is not at your expense. The pie grows for all who wish a slice. The rich have taken NOTHING from you, your own inability to be successful has.

You simply choose to blame your own failings on some random "rich person". You are jealous of his success because you are unable to create your own.

Yeah yeah, I've heard this bullshit before. It's the same "prosperity gospel" and "The Secret" snake oil... snap your fingers and *poof* you can generate wealth by just creating it out of thin air!!!

It's the same blame game, blame the victim, etc.

Systemic problems put millions out of work, and people like you blame the individual for circumstances beyond their control.

The rich have taken nothing? You are full of crap.

May I remind you that banks took billions in TARP money, and the fat cats at Goldman Sachs are getting away like bandits with billions in cheap money. All at TAXPAYER expense.

How about AIG, Fanny and Freddy, GM and Chrysler, hmm?

The Rich have taken plenty from me, a citizen who pays a marginal rate of 28% on top of all the other taxes. Screw you.

Is it even theoretically possible for everyone to be a millionaire in today's dollars, i.e. discounting inflation? Is it really possible for everyone to earn the means to enjoy what most Americans would term an "upper-middle class" lifestyle?

Not without destroying the environment. That is what scares me most about India and China.

 

[Specop 007]

1. Wealth is finite, Economics is a zero sum game, the only added "wealth" is inflation and labor pool.

2. Concentration of said limited wealth is what hardens a recession. When a large amount of investment money dries up because the rich get cold feet, recessions happen. The more money that gets frozen up, the deeper the recession. ARRA and TARP try to circumvent this by forcing investment via public works and keeping lenders in business (we can debate all day whether it actually does anything, but that is the idea behind them).

I suggest you try to educate yourself. ALOT. Money is not a fixed supply item. Any high schooler whos taken basic Economics could tell you this. The current supply of money in circulation is VERY EASY to see, as is the expansion of that supply over time. Which is why theres been some concern as of late, the government has been on a printing rampage.

 

[Specop 007]

Is it even theoretically possible for everyone to be a millionaire in today's dollars, i.e. discounting inflation? Is it really possible for everyone to earn the means to enjoy what most Americans would term an "upper-middle class" lifestyle?

No, not everyone can be successful. Certainly not because of the rules of the game however. The simple fact is this. To be really successful takes a lot of hard work. To be a small business owner in a successful business making good money will damn near consume your life.

Most arent willing to make that level of commitment to the almighty dollar. I dont know if thats good or bad, thats an individual decision. I do know that it takes HARD work to really be successful. That is the price of entry, a price many are unwilling to pay.

But that wont stop them from bemoaning "The Man" as their cause of failure......

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What country are you planning on going to?

I'll go to Daveland, where you can make the world better by blaming Republicans!

Unfortunately your Dems started screwing my state before the Reps ever thought of it.

Nope, they didn't learn from the Reps, and while you may be glad they did as much damage as they have, most of that has been those you've complained have been screwed by the Reps.

Neither is worth a thing. If you are going to have fun hating, hate them both.

 

[Specop 007]

Yeah yeah, I've heard this bullshit before. It's the same "prosperity gospel" and "The Secret" snake oil... snap your fingers and *poof* you can generate wealth by just creating it out of thin air!!!

It's the same blame game, blame the victim, etc.

Systemic problems put millions out of work, and people like you blame the individual for circumstances beyond their control.

The rich have taken nothing? You are full of crap.

May I remind you that banks took billions in TARP money, and the fat cats at Goldman Sachs are getting away like bandits with billions in cheap money. All at TAXPAYER expense.

How about AIG, Fanny and Freddy, GM and Chrysler, hmm?

The Rich have taken plenty from me, a citizen who pays a marginal rate of 28% on top of all the other taxes. Screw you.

Bitter, party of one.

The Rich have GIVEN you FAR more than they have taken. Maybe instead of wasting your free time on the internet and games or fishing you should have secured a skill which is still in demand? Do you know how many people PISSED AWAY opportunity? How many employers offered tuition reimbursement that wasnt used by the employee base? How many community colleges had class openings for evening classes?

You EXPECTED that some unidentified "Rich Man" would always give you a cushy job with a nice paycheck for no other reason than because you were. Such is not the case. You, I, everyone, we EARN our paycheck. When you no longer have a marketable skill you will find yourself out of work. Such is life.

Your attitude mimics most though. You DESERVE a high paying job. You DESERVE a big house, you DESERVE a nice car, 401k, benefits and all the other assorted toys and fun times.

You DESERVE shit, and from the sounds of it a swift kick in the nuts.

You EARN a big house, EARN a fast car, EARN those toys. Somewhere along the way you forgot that. Unfortunate things happen to people. I only think less of you because you arent willing to put aside your jealousy and envy and work to build yourself up again. But so many others are just like you. When bad times fall on YOU, its not YOUR fault for not taking night classes in another field while times were good is it? Oh no, its some pie in the sky horseshit about about how the "Rich Man" stole from you.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

No kidding, the Republicans haven't followed free market in ages.

I think they're about 10x closer to free market than the Dems are. This is obvious. They aren't true free market, but so what? To me, I do believe in free market, and it's quite obvious that more Republican agendas fall in line with that.

I obviously hate what the Republican party has become too. But when people talk about careless spending like Bush and his wars, it is spending that we could get rid of. I'd like to spend less. But at the same time that's not about free market or not. Declaring war and funneling billions in defense spending isn't about socialist principles.

On the other hand, a PUBLIC PLAN, and CAP AND TRADE, and Barack's Stimulus... yes this is all on the other end of free market.

Free market is a pie in the sky yes, and Republicans have drifted further away from it in the recent years, but it's not like the Dems are any closer.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Republicans destroyed the country. All the rest is just talk and propaganda.

Bolded for truth

I thought I heard the sound of bleating sheep. You voted for Bush, so what does that say about you Dave?

 

[dmcowen674]

I'll go to Daveland, where you can make the world better by blaming Republicans!

Unfortunately your Dems started screwing my state before the Reps ever thought of it.

Nope, they didn't learn from the Reps, and while you may be glad they did as much damage as they have, most of that has been those you've complained have been screwed by the Reps.

Neither is worth a thing. If you are going to have fun hating, hate them both.

Where is Daveland?

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh dear spaghetti monster/god/supermodel in heaven please tell me this is sarcasm. My sarcasm meter is not going off, but at the same time the statement is so stupid that I cannot begin to believe this is honestly your belief.

From wikipedia:



In other words, there would never be a trade that would benefit both parties at the same time. For one person to become richer someone else must be poorer. If we compare the total wealth of the world just 60 years ago, I am sure that we had less stuff. We had no computers, we had no cell phones, we had less cars, we had less food, we had less clothes, less people had heat and air conditioning.

Economics cannot be a zero sum game. It makes absolutely no sense to state it is "zero sum" in the vast wealth of experience we have regarding the world in the past several hundred years. It is a common fallacy to examine trade as if it were a zero sum game, I.E. rich countries must be rich because they stole from the countries that are now poor, but it is a fallacy. The benefits of trade have been understood for generations. If you want to base your argument for trade policies on the basis of "zero sum" I hope no one is dumb enough to listen.

"Wealth," in the monetary sense, is zero sum. Even if the government prints more money, it devalues the currency accordingly. However, you are basically correct here in that economics is not about monetary wealth. At its core it is about the distribution of resources to masses of people. Since total resources can increase over time, economics is not zero sum over time.

- wolf

 

[stateofbeasley]

The Rich have GIVEN you FAR more than they have taken. Maybe instead of wasting your free time on the internet

"Pot, Kettle, Black" Jackass.

I pay a 28% marginal rate to prop up Government Motors. What do you pay?

Your attitude mimics most though. You DESERVE a high paying job. You DESERVE a big house, you DESERVE a nice car, 401k, benefits and all the other assorted toys and fun times.

Nice try. I scrambled for my job and worked my ass off billing 60+ hours a week for the past few years. The market is more than willing to pay for my work.

You EARN those toys. Somewhere along the way you forgot that. Unfortunate things happen to people. I only think less of you because you arent willing to put aside your jealousy and envy and work to build yourself up again.

You've only proven that (1) You think you are some sort of telepath who knows what I think (2) You have no reading comprehension. The recession hasn't knocked me down. "Build yourself up again"? Please.

No wonder this country has gone to the dogs, with all the marginally literate people here.

 

[MotF Bane]

Where is Daveland?

Thank god for mental illness.

 

[BoberFett]

Bolded for truth

It's a shame you voted for Bush.

 

[Craig234]

How many jobs have poor people created? None.

How many taxes do poor people pay? None.

Those damned evil greedy rich folk. Damn them to hell.

The simple fact your arguments fails, time and time again, is because wealth is NOT finite. if I get more of the pie it is not at your expense. The pie grows for all who wish a slice. The rich have taken NOTHING from you, your own inability to be successful has.

You simply choose to blame your own failings on some random "rich person". You are jealous of his success because you are unable to create your own.

Idiot. I do't bother to reply to things that idiotic. How much do I make, since you claim to know? As if it has anything to do with the rightness of the argument?

I have said a number of times I avoid RL info, but I'm curious, if we compare the AGI on our last tax forms, and mine is higher than yours, will you drink 2 cups of refrigerator coffee? How abiout double yours?

 

[Craig234]

While I appreciate your showing some consistency here in that you generally agree with me, I am no so sure that left wing public interest groups necessarily align that well with the public interests. Unions are the major source of funding for progressives, and they represent a special interest which is in the minority here.

The clearest case is the relationship between teacher's unions and the democratic party. Teacher's unions are enemies of the notion of paying teachers based on merit instead of just seniority, and most importantly, of firing bad teachers. Dems believe in providing high funding for education, which I generally support, but then we can't get the real bang for our buck because dems are too aligned with teacher's unions. The result is that while there is some correlation between per pupil spending and quality, the correlation is much weaker than it would be if we were able to subvert the interest of this union.

Another example was with the auto bailout. The unions there needed to agree that their members would take a substantial hit, at least in the short term, to keep these businesses afloat. Instead, we got a situation where the taxpayers had to bear the lion's share of the burden of keeping them afloat, because the dems are beholden to the unions.

- wolf

The rise of the average American from poverty ($10,000 a year in 1900 adjusted for inflation) to what we think of as middle class was based more than anything else on the growth of the union.

The union has been ESSENTIAL to the middle class, not only for its workers directly but for its 'umbrella effect' on non-unions wages.

Unions can go to far. They can be corrupt. They are not perfectly aligned with the public,

But between labor and owners overhistory, the unions ave beem far more closely aligned with the public.

I'm happy to have restraints in place when it becomes an issue. But now, for 30 years, we've been in a crisis for the middle class. Unions have shrunk to a fraction what they were, the rich have skyrocketed in wealth while the bottom 80% have gotten nothing of the nation's economic growth after inflation for these 30 year,s an unprecedented event and the opposite of a 'rising tide lifting all boats'.

It has nothing to do with the ignornant idelogy spewed by righties here and eveyrthing to do with the victory of the rich to control the government for its own benefit over the public.

For example, Arnold Schwarzeneggar has mainly been a governor who represents the rich. He had some ballot inititatives with plenty of backing. The public does not donate much to represent its own interests.

You know who took him on - and won? The nurses and teachers' unions. Thank goodness they were there. They have the organzation the public lacks.

When unions get progressives elected, it's a public good. It's a lousy workaround perhaps, but one the public needs right now. Who benefts and who is hurt if it were removed?

I understand the problems. One of my blasts at the preceding Democratic governor, who was far better than Schwarzeneggar and who did not take a lot of the corrupt money, was that he did indulge in the corruption of the powerful prison guard union. They did very nicely at taxpayer expense and helped him quite a bit. Not a good situation and I'm for reform, but as his situation showed, the corrupt monied interests are ready to jump in.

Enron - who wants to defed them? - screwed California of billions. When caught Republicans wanted a sweetheart deal needing the governor to let them off the hook. Davis Refused. Schwarzeneggar signed.

Hope this helps with where I agree on the details but defend one side as more for the public in the larger situation.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town. I'd say most people in my town were fairly Conservative, as I defined it at the time. Many people went to Church, many people were religious, and for the most part, I felt it was a fairly wealthy area. When I graduated High School, I went to a really liberal College - but I didn't really know what that meant at the time. I took up a Political Science minor and began taking classes. Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

Well I would only like to ask you A couple of very small questions Ok . Isn't New York state and City Largely Dems and liberials at that?

The only other question I have for you is this, Were is it that the Democrate New York City Dumps its garbage. You fail badly with your BS analogy And hows about all the independents out there. I voted for more Dems than republicans, Fact is every president I voted for since I was 18 has won . After Bush I know longer vote in national or state elections . Just local.

 

[palehorse]

Craig, please name the most prominent national representative of this "public interest" group of reps you keep referring to. Heck, impress me, give us the top three!

/crickets

 

[Craig234]

/crickets

Gee I missed one of your posts. I'm shocked.

Bernie Sanders (Independant aligned with Democrats), Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark are three examples.

 

[daishi5]

"Wealth," in the monetary sense, is zero sum. Even if the government prints more money, it devalues the currency accordingly. However, you are basically correct here in that economics is not about monetary wealth. At its core it is about the distribution of resources to masses of people. Since total resources can increase over time, economics is not zero sum over time.

- wolf

I disagree, but it is mainly on technicalities. Money is zero sum in transactions, but only if you ignore the value of the goods relative to the benefit they provide to the parties in the transaction. You can evaluate transactions that way, but I don't see why you would do this. The total sum of resources at any given time is zero sum, but the "value" to each person is different. Therefore, even though the resources do not increase, transactions are not zero sum, because two people can make a trade, and both can benefit, the total value everyone receives increases, so even without increasing the total resources it is not zero sum. For example, farmer buys fertilizer, to him it is more valuable than the money he spent (or he would not have spent the money), and to the company selling the money is more valuable than the fertilizer (or they would not have sold).

Edit: Also, "wealth" as being defined by the total sum of "money" such as dollars or gold is an outdated definition that I believe was abandoned with mercantilism. I won't say it is wrong, but I think it is much better to refer to wealth as the sum of possessions and services one has and receives plus the total of wealth and services that could be acquired with current capital. The total possessions being actual wealth, and the capital being potential wealth that has not been realized.

Honestly, before I started writing this I had forgotten how vague the definition of "wealth" is, and now that the rusty gears are turning I am remembering and going way off track.