Jump to content

Communist flag now flying over America


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

President-elect Joe Biden wins Electoral College vote, cementing his victory over Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/14/election-results-biden-electoral-votes.html

 

Probably will never see Republicans win again Presidency.

 

A key market risk, and this one is no joke, is probability that Republicans lose Senate control with January 5 runoff election in Georgia. The way they counted votes in Georgia, it becomes almost a certainty.

 

Then you would have "a blue wave" or what markets really feared before Nov 4.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A big problem I think (and, to be fair I am a few bottles of wine and let's say perhaps a similar amount of glasses of whiskey, in) is that nobody actually identifies with the country anymore.

 

I forget the movie but there's a quote - "you're all renting". That's what it sounds like to me when folks cry and moan about trivial political issues. You're a renter, and your concerns are fleeting. 

 

I mean, it is a mental exercise to take yourself and your own beliefs out of the equation, and think what is best for the country as a whole. When you think this way, naturally you have to make compromises because you cannot please everyone and, more importantly, nor should you.

 

Globalization while yes, damaging to the car-builders and metal-miners of the USA, was better on whole for the country. Those are the types of difficult decisions that a real leader must make. It's easy to appeal to the basic demands of poor rural Americans or poor urban Americans. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to first understand "what is America" at this point in time, and then make the decisions to maximize the wellbeing and future prospects of that America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big problem I think (and, to be fair I am a few bottles of wine and let's say perhaps a similar amount of glasses of whiskey, in) is that nobody actually identifies with the country anymore.

 

I forget the movie but there's a quote - "you're all renting". That's what it sounds like to me when folks cry and moan about trivial political issues. You're a renter, and your concerns are fleeting. 

 

I mean, it is a mental exercise to take yourself and your own beliefs out of the equation, and think what is best for the country as a whole. When you think this way, naturally you have to make compromises because you cannot please everyone and, more importantly, nor should you.

 

Globalization while yes, damaging to the car-builders and metal-miners of the USA, was better on whole for the country. Those are the types of difficult decisions that a real leader must make. It's easy to appeal to the basic demands of poor rural Americans or poor urban Americans. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to first understand "what is America" at this point in time, and then make the decisions to maximize the wellbeing and future prospects of that America.

Leaving aside the title, this topic is pretty laughable.

 

From an economics perspective your income is determined based on how productive you are. A lot of the narrative on these subforums is based on the fact that joe Shmoe from middle of nowhere  America that bangs hammers deserves a certain standard of living. A standard of living that is higher than another guy's that bangs hammers somewhere else.  This is a ridiculous proposition.

 

Income is a determination of your productivity. In the past it worked out great for joe shmoe because the other guys didn't have hammers. Once they got hammers they caught up. Hammers aren't that hard to get. But the same process is replicating to other things. You can call it globalization, but it's not that. It's countries becoming more efficient. Communism was inefficient and people wanted to destroy communism. They did and those people became more efficient. This is the result. This is the free market at work doing its thing!

 

Now you can keep Joe Schmoe living the life he's become accustomed to through some sort of redistribution tax. This can be some straight up tax where you tax silicon Max and give the money middle Joe. Or you could do it with tariffs (it gets more messy because countries have a tendency to retaliate) but it's the same thing nonetheless.

 

The problem is that America doesn't want to have this conversation and admit this to itself and prefers to talk to itself about some dreams about the "real America" and some bogyman called communism which doesn't exist anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big problem I think (and, to be fair I am a few bottles of wine and let's say perhaps a similar amount of glasses of whiskey, in) is that nobody actually identifies with the country anymore.

 

I forget the movie but there's a quote - "you're all renting". That's what it sounds like to me when folks cry and moan about trivial political issues. You're a renter, and your concerns are fleeting. 

 

I mean, it is a mental exercise to take yourself and your own beliefs out of the equation, and think what is best for the country as a whole. When you think this way, naturally you have to make compromises because you cannot please everyone and, more importantly, nor should you.

 

Globalization while yes, damaging to the car-builders and metal-miners of the USA, was better on whole for the country. Those are the types of difficult decisions that a real leader must make. It's easy to appeal to the basic demands of poor rural Americans or poor urban Americans. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to first understand "what is America" at this point in time, and then make the decisions to maximize the wellbeing and future prospects of that America.

Leaving aside the title, this topic is pretty laughable.

 

From an economics perspective your income is determined based on how productive you are. A lot of the narrative on these subforums is based on the fact that joe Shmoe from middle of nowhere  America that bangs hammers deserves a certain standard of living. A standard of living that is higher than another guy's that bangs hammers somewhere else.  This is a ridiculous proposition.

 

Income is a determination of your productivity. In the past it worked out great for joe shmoe because the other guys didn't have hammers. Once they got hammers they caught up. Hammers aren't that hard to get. But the same process is replicating to other things. You can call it globalization, but it's not that. It's countries becoming more efficient. Communism was inefficient and people wanted to destroy communism. They did and those people became more efficient. This is the result. This is the free market at work doing its thing!

 

Now you can keep Joe Schmoe living the life he's become accustomed to through some sort of redistribution tax. This can be some straight up tax where you tax silicon Max and give the money middle Joe. Or you could do it with tariffs (it gets more messy because countries have a tendency to retaliate) but it's the same thing nonetheless.

 

The problem is that America doesn't want to have this conversation and admit this to itself and prefers to talk to itself about some dreams about the "real America" and some bogyman called communism which doesn't exist anymore.

 

THIS

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea but why doesnt the above logic also apply to the guy working the counter at MCD or the fella selling shoes at FL? If your income is determined by how productive you are when talking about people with hammers....why do we then demand higher minimum wage for burger flippers and kitchen helpers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Efficiency mindset is good at an individual level. It’s personal choices that drive change (choosing to learn a new skill, start a business, save more, etc.). When you apply this group think efficiency mindset to everyone (govt down) it becomes very inefficient and creates massive disparities (I can no longer scale my business because I now have to pay $15 minimum wage and provide health insurance). It is too complex to try and manage a system like that. In the end it just becomes red tape that people have to deal with at individual levels.

 

Also...real communism does still exist. In many areas and I think it’s foolish to think it doesn’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do we then demand higher minimum wage for burger flippers and kitchen helpers?

 

Because $14,500 per year is $7.25 per hour and it costs more than $1,000 per month to buy health insurance for a family of 4. 

 

We are already paying their expenses in some form anyway (like when they can't pay their medical bills, we all end up paying for them).  In other words, their employers have been externalizing/socializing their cost of labor.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do we then demand higher minimum wage for burger flippers and kitchen helpers?

 

Because $14,500 per year is $7.25 per hour and it costs more than $1,000 per month to buy health insurance for a family of 4. 

 

We are already paying their expenses in some form anyway (like when they can't pay their medical bills, we all end up paying for them).  In other words, their employers have been externalizing/socializing their cost of labor.

 

Except flipping burgers was traditionally a job for high school and college kids. It was never intended to be a profession designed to support entire families or individual lifestyles...

 

But it seems you missed the majority of my point. Why when we are talking about hammer swingers is it "income is a function of your productivity" but then with others jobs, the same is not applied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why when we are talking about hammer swingers is it "income is a function of your productivity" but then with others jobs, the same is not applied?

 

The hammer swingers:  it's not only productivity but also the amount of labor available (supply demand).  An MD makes his money because there is limited supply of qualified MD's due to a high barrier to entry to obtain one, not because the MD produces more than a hammer swinger.

 

 

And the minimum wage is a separate topic.  The socialist burger joint owners don't like it BECAUSE they are implicitly socialists (they want society to subsidize their true cost of their workforce).  It pisses them off when they have to bear that cost themselves.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true cost is not subsidized by society when a 17 year old who's parents already pay their insurance makes enough money to buy a dime bag and some video games. The true cost is only burdensome upon everyone when an unskilled 35 year old with kids decides they want to be a career deep fryer rather than pursue a real career....

 

I take it you've never owned a business before if you think the entrepreneur that is stuck paying in excess of 40% taxes on every dollar they earn, regardless of whether its $100, $100k or $1M is a socialist....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was globalization better "on whole for the country?"

 

If you define "better" as having more junk, then sure.

 

If you define "better" as having strong communities and families, then it's been a resounding failure.

 

If the government didn't run huge deficits and super low interest rates, how much better would the upper class be than the "car-builders and metal-miners"?

 

The only reason the technology side is so much more highly paid and highly valued is due to government policies to make it so. Facebook probably makes the country worse off (more wasted time, more depression) but it's highly valued. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of technologies companies are beneficial but the Facebook and Netflixes of the world, in my opinion, are not.

 

Speaking of which, how much would this companies be valued at (or even receive funding) if interest rates were back at 7%?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you've never owned a business before if you think the entrepreneur that is stuck paying in excess of 40% taxes on every dollar they earn, regardless of whether its $100, $100k or $1M is a socialist....

 

I live in California so a 40% tax rate isn't going to win me over to seeing your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you've never owned a business before if you think the entrepreneur that is stuck paying in excess of 40% taxes on every dollar they earn, regardless of whether its $100, $100k or $1M is a socialist....

 

I live in California so a 40% tax rate isn't going to win me over to seeing your side.

 

I live in NJ and have worked in NY while living in NJ...but that too... is irrelevant to the discussion. You're (ironically) generalizing(can I call you a bigot?) business owners. They are forced to be economically sensitive due to 1) the viability of their business, and 2) regulations. Having a minimum hurdle of 40%, especially in low margin highly competitive places like QSR, further exacerbates their problems. Further making this worse is your friends in government who tell them they cant favor hiring certain workers....Half these problems wouldn't exist if that wasnt the case. Instead, you have the double whammy of grown adults willfully taking jobs intended for high school and college kids....and then turning around and bitching like babies that the pay isnt enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL What? You continuously avoid almost the entirety of the argument, pick one sentence(sometimes not even a sentence, just a few words) and then run off on a tangent.

 

I dont even know what you're alluding to with "there it is". If a job is not intended to support a lifestyle, thats all there is to it....Whats next, attacking ice cream parlor owners because 40 year old men want to replace the 16 year old girls working 6-9 pm 3 days a week?

 

You also COMPLETELY avoid reconciling why people who WILLFULLY take jobs have the nerve to complain about them....If there was an issue with pay, why didnt they negotiate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL What? You continuously avoid almost the entirety of the argument, pick one sentence(sometimes not even a sentence, just a few words) and then run off on a tangent.

 

Do I need to waste my time arguing your points that they spend all of their money on meth?

 

You don't need to be told about college expenses do you?  Uncle Trump won't be around to defer their payments forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but it would help if you actually addressed the points being raised....

 

Again, they are:

 

These type of jobs are not intended to support a lifestyle...

 

These people are free to negotiate pay before they take the jobs...

 

That is how you are narrowly framing it.  Like you said, adults are working these jobs.  And that’s that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do we then demand higher minimum wage for burger flippers and kitchen helpers?

 

Because $14,500 per year is $7.25 per hour and it costs more than $1,000 per month to buy health insurance for a family of 4. 

 

We are already paying their expenses in some form anyway (like when they can't pay their medical bills, we all end up paying for them).  In other words, their employers have been externalizing/socializing their cost of labor.

 

We? Who is we?

 

"We are already paying their expenses in some form anyway"

 

How? I constantly hear this talking point justifying free education and healthcare. So if we raise taxes 20% to pay for healthcare and education I will be paying less overall? Very skeptical of this claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...