D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Hello Ayn Rand, it's a pleasure to have you stopping by Jazzfanz today! Coffee? Tea?
Vote for Bernie today
- Thread starter Getting Traded
- Start date
Hello Ayn Rand, it's a pleasure to have you stopping by Jazzfanz today! Coffee? Tea?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Looking back, I'm not exactly sure. Looks like I conflated your post with Joe's in my head.
But I address this lazy rhetoric with my responses to CL later on.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
The fact that you ignore the political policies of every developed nation outside of the United States is even more sad, and textbook American paternalism of the baby-boom generation.
Pls now proceed to complain about how thin-skinned today's Millenials are "in today's PC climate".
Nice try. You have used the tactic of "false choice" and "stereotyping." The choice isn't A or B in terms of adopting all or none of the policies of "every" developed nations followed by dismissing one's opinion by grouping them with a particular cohort.
Labeling is a tactic one use's so they don't have to consider another's viewpoint. People from Canada don't get America so their opinions are worthless. See how that works?
Pearl, I only looked into the thread because I saw you had posted.
I know that you and I both know we are smart and educated guys. So it may come as a surprise to you that I love Bernie (or not, I was always a weird lefty). If you don't mind, I'd like to go a little point by point with you.
Yep, you're right. However, that doesn't mean that tax and wage policy hasn't played a role in the decline of the middle class as a share of the population; it just means that dating it to Reagan is wrong. Below is a graph of the effective and nominal minimum wages historically from the 1930s to 2012.
The minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at an effective rate a little above ten dollars. This also coincides with near historical unemployment lows of 3.4-3.6%.
Unfortunately there's a bit of a tie between two otherwise unrelated issues: those who continually push for lower taxes also tend to push for the abolishment or lowering of the minimum wage. In that sense, I view the Bernie position of a $15 minimum wage as an effective opening bid that might get him a $12 minimum wage. Hillary opens the bid at $12 because, fundamentally, she's actually a conservative.
I also believe there is a strong argument for the provision of increased tax revenues on the backs of the upper 1% (and, BTW, I say this as an individual who stands to pay more taxes in a Sanders administration) and expenditures that increase growth that I will tackle further below.
Narrative plays a large role in politics. However, I don't think the fact that no one has taken action means that there is no link is a particularly valid argument. I'm pretty sure "Congress won't do anything about it, so therefore it isn't real" might be the worst possible argument as it applies to climate change for example. Political problems, almost by definition have particular hurdles that have to be overcome. The hurdle in this instance is overcoming the resistance of the landed elite. It was very difficult to get kings to give up absolute power, but that it took centuries is not evidence that monarchy was a particularly good form of government.
I suspect if you pushed Warren, he would express support for basic income (negative income tax rates) at the low end. Particularly as automation increases. But can you imagine something that would ever be a bigger non-starter for conservatives?
Let me suggest to you my favorite pitch that I developed while watching what happened under the era of real and active sequestration in 2013. There's a dirty secret in this county that Liberals and Conservatives don't like to acknowledge.
The part liberals hate: Our defense budget is strictly necessary for our economy as presently constituted.
The part conservatives hate: The reason our defense budget is necessary is because it is, in effect, the largest jobs program on the planet.
Put simply, way more jobs than anyone realizes depend upon that flow of cash. Engineering firms all but shut up shop during the 2013 sequestration in places like Huntsville, AL and Phoenix, AZ. My own parents moved because the projects that were previously assigned to my father's firm were not renewed by the Department of Defense due to budget cuts. And these are educated people that we want to encourage to have productive jobs in this country.
On the other hand, previous massive government investment creates jobs and externalities in positive and lasting ways. We are still reaping some of the rewards from Roosevelt era programs that created wonderful infrastructure. In the 1960s, 4% of the entire federal budget was dedicated to the space race. NASA employed over 400,000 people and managed to go from nearly nothing to a man on the moon in a decade. If you really think about how astonishing that is, it's simply staggering. Further, the things we learned and developed during that period created a springboard for all kinds of technologies that were not even imaginable in the 1940s. Computing, miniaturization, and materials science lept forward just incredibly rapidly and that technological innovation forms the basis for much of our current wealth. The benefits are both immediate, employing and incentivizing the creation of more trained professionals in the populace, and long-term. It makes everyone richer and gives us all something to believe it that makes it worth it to be American and alive (I'm of the opinion that the lunar lander should be on our $100 bill).
I propose as follows: increased tax revenue from assessments on the wealthy be directly applied, as part of the same bill that raises taxes, to targeted and direct research and development investment in some key areas. Clean energy, space exploration, biotechnology and life sciences, etc etc. A silicon valley approach to expenditure is, in many ways, the cleanest and fastest return on investment we could ever have. And it directly puts people to work. Even if some of those fail, it doesn't really matter. One successful moon shot reaps rewards that are incalculable.
Further, in order to argue that this is good policy doesn't require me to win that this sort of true jobs program would be better than having the private sector spend the same money (although I would take that argument). It only requires me to win that this program would be better than having the top 1% or 0.1% hoard the wealth that they have been accumulating. And I don't think that it's going to take much to prove that hoarding is an inefficient social waste of resources.
TBH: It barely works even if you get a high end graduate degree. My age range has a lot of very indebted doctors and lawyers. For this, I mostly blame US News and World Report, along with no conditional tuition cap as a student loan funding requirement.
I know that you and I both know we are smart and educated guys. So it may come as a surprise to you that I love Bernie (or not, I was always a weird lefty). If you don't mind, I'd like to go a little point by point with you.
Yep, you're right. However, that doesn't mean that tax and wage policy hasn't played a role in the decline of the middle class as a share of the population; it just means that dating it to Reagan is wrong. Below is a graph of the effective and nominal minimum wages historically from the 1930s to 2012.
The minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at an effective rate a little above ten dollars. This also coincides with near historical unemployment lows of 3.4-3.6%.
Unfortunately there's a bit of a tie between two otherwise unrelated issues: those who continually push for lower taxes also tend to push for the abolishment or lowering of the minimum wage. In that sense, I view the Bernie position of a $15 minimum wage as an effective opening bid that might get him a $12 minimum wage. Hillary opens the bid at $12 because, fundamentally, she's actually a conservative.
I also believe there is a strong argument for the provision of increased tax revenues on the backs of the upper 1% (and, BTW, I say this as an individual who stands to pay more taxes in a Sanders administration) and expenditures that increase growth that I will tackle further below.
Narrative plays a large role in politics. However, I don't think the fact that no one has taken action means that there is no link is a particularly valid argument. I'm pretty sure "Congress won't do anything about it, so therefore it isn't real" might be the worst possible argument as it applies to climate change for example. Political problems, almost by definition have particular hurdles that have to be overcome. The hurdle in this instance is overcoming the resistance of the landed elite. It was very difficult to get kings to give up absolute power, but that it took centuries is not evidence that monarchy was a particularly good form of government.
I suspect if you pushed Warren, he would express support for basic income (negative income tax rates) at the low end. Particularly as automation increases. But can you imagine something that would ever be a bigger non-starter for conservatives?
Let me suggest to you my favorite pitch that I developed while watching what happened under the era of real and active sequestration in 2013. There's a dirty secret in this county that Liberals and Conservatives don't like to acknowledge.
The part liberals hate: Our defense budget is strictly necessary for our economy as presently constituted.
The part conservatives hate: The reason our defense budget is necessary is because it is, in effect, the largest jobs program on the planet.
Put simply, way more jobs than anyone realizes depend upon that flow of cash. Engineering firms all but shut up shop during the 2013 sequestration in places like Huntsville, AL and Phoenix, AZ. My own parents moved because the projects that were previously assigned to my father's firm were not renewed by the Department of Defense due to budget cuts. And these are educated people that we want to encourage to have productive jobs in this country.
On the other hand, previous massive government investment creates jobs and externalities in positive and lasting ways. We are still reaping some of the rewards from Roosevelt era programs that created wonderful infrastructure. In the 1960s, 4% of the entire federal budget was dedicated to the space race. NASA employed over 400,000 people and managed to go from nearly nothing to a man on the moon in a decade. If you really think about how astonishing that is, it's simply staggering. Further, the things we learned and developed during that period created a springboard for all kinds of technologies that were not even imaginable in the 1940s. Computing, miniaturization, and materials science lept forward just incredibly rapidly and that technological innovation forms the basis for much of our current wealth. The benefits are both immediate, employing and incentivizing the creation of more trained professionals in the populace, and long-term. It makes everyone richer and gives us all something to believe it that makes it worth it to be American and alive (I'm of the opinion that the lunar lander should be on our $100 bill).
I propose as follows: increased tax revenue from assessments on the wealthy be directly applied, as part of the same bill that raises taxes, to targeted and direct research and development investment in some key areas. Clean energy, space exploration, biotechnology and life sciences, etc etc. A silicon valley approach to expenditure is, in many ways, the cleanest and fastest return on investment we could ever have. And it directly puts people to work. Even if some of those fail, it doesn't really matter. One successful moon shot reaps rewards that are incalculable.
Further, in order to argue that this is good policy doesn't require me to win that this sort of true jobs program would be better than having the private sector spend the same money (although I would take that argument). It only requires me to win that this program would be better than having the top 1% or 0.1% hoard the wealth that they have been accumulating. And I don't think that it's going to take much to prove that hoarding is an inefficient social waste of resources.
TBH: It barely works even if you get a high end graduate degree. My age range has a lot of very indebted doctors and lawyers. For this, I mostly blame US News and World Report, along with no conditional tuition cap as a student loan funding requirement.
Hi dala,
You know I'm a lefty who agrees with the meat of your beliefs on a lot of things so I hope you'll take this the right way.
It makes all of us look worse when you treat those that have principled disagreements with you but are not racist or insane as if they are among the very worst of your opponents.
The pearl is a nice and reasonable man who looks dapper in a sweater vest. He deserves better than you gave him here and responses like the one above just make it look like you're the crazy one.
Pick your battles more judiciously.
Love,
Sirkickyass, Moderator Emeritus Esq.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Except you didn't. You said tax loopholes = the rich getting free stuff (which is hilarious btw), you said something about the rich paying their fair share, but you won't say what their fair share is. It's all just lazy rhetoric. You're not expounding on it, you're just using different buzzwords.
Pearl,
Now that I've laid out my big dream proposals to you I'd like to note that I have been asked to run for state senate in Arizona in 2018 and am considering doing it. Can I reach across the aisle and ask for your support to my campaign today?
Now that I've laid out my big dream proposals to you I'd like to note that I have been asked to run for state senate in Arizona in 2018 and am considering doing it. Can I reach across the aisle and ask for your support to my campaign today?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Pearl and Kicky are making this a great convo. Props to both of you, and please continue, for my enjoyment and education.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Speaking of college, my alma mater (land grand university btw) is pushing to make their STEM majors become more like STEAM majors. I'm a big proponent of that, and think that will help a lot of young graduates in their job search. I also think we NEED to promote more trade based institutions. No, welding, machining, etc aren't glamorous jobs. But they're not that expensive, you have good job security, and good pay. Another venue is biotechnology, especially with agriculture. Like it or not, genetically engineered crops are the future, and there will be a ton of jobs there.
Pearl,
Now that I've laid out my big dream proposals to you I'd like to note that I have been asked to run for state senate in Arizona in 2018 and am considering doing it. Can I reach across the aisle and ask for your support to my campaign today?
Hell you tell me and I'll support you across party lines.
Pearl,
Now that I've laid out my big dream proposals to you I'd like to note that I have been asked to run for state senate in Arizona in 2018 and am considering doing it. Can I reach across the aisle and ask for your support to my campaign today?
"FEEL THE KICK!"
I am getting close to retirement age. I can move to AZ, play golf by day and steal your opponents political signs by night.
We can do better than that. When you go mall walking I'll give you a big stack of bumper stickers for my opponent. Your job will be to place stickers with his name on them on cars in the parking lot.
Great slogan!
Enjoyed the economics lessons - learned a lot from Pearl and Kicky. As usual.
That's evilly funny. You've got this politics thing down already.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
*sits down*
I didn't have the time to go in as robustly as you did (lots to study), but I just had to voice my disapproval in some regard. It's an Internet forum, not a scholarly debate.
Please continue onwards with said discussion-- it will be illuminating for all parties involved.
Pearl, I only looked into the thread because I saw you had posted.
I know that you and I both know we are smart and educated guys. So it may come as a surprise to you that I love Bernie (or not, I was always a weird lefty). If you don't mind, I'd like to go a little point by point with you.
Yep, you're right. However, that doesn't mean that tax and wage policy hasn't played a role in the decline of the middle class as a share of the population; it just means that dating it to Reagan is wrong. Below is a graph of the effective and nominal minimum wages historically from the 1930s to 2012.
The minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at an effective rate a little above ten dollars. This also coincides with near historical unemployment lows of 3.4-3.6%.
Unfortunately there's a bit of a tie between two otherwise unrelated issues: those who continually push for lower taxes also tend to push for the abolishment or lowering of the minimum wage. In that sense, I view the Bernie position of a $15 minimum wage as an effective opening bid that might get him a $12 minimum wage. Hillary opens the bid at $12 because, fundamentally, she's actually a conservative.
I also believe there is a strong argument for the provision of increased tax revenues on the backs of the upper 1% (and, BTW, I say this as an individual who stands to pay more taxes in a Sanders administration) and expenditures that increase growth that I will tackle further below.
Narrative plays a large role in politics. However, I don't think the fact that no one has taken action means that there is no link is a particularly valid argument. I'm pretty sure "Congress won't do anything about it, so therefore it isn't real" might be the worst possible argument as it applies to climate change for example. Political problems, almost by definition have particular hurdles that have to be overcome. The hurdle in this instance is overcoming the resistance of the landed elite. It was very difficult to get kings to give up absolute power, but that it took centuries is not evidence that monarchy was a particularly good form of government.
I suspect if you pushed Warren, he would express support for basic income (negative income tax rates) at the low end. Particularly as automation increases. But can you imagine something that would ever be a bigger non-starter for conservatives?
Let me suggest to you my favorite pitch that I developed while watching what happened under the era of real and active sequestration in 2013. There's a dirty secret in this county that Liberals and Conservatives don't like to acknowledge.
The part liberals hate: Our defense budget is strictly necessary for our economy as presently constituted.
The part conservatives hate: The reason our defense budget is necessary is because it is, in effect, the largest jobs program on the planet.
Put simply, way more jobs than anyone realizes depend upon that flow of cash. Engineering firms all but shut up shop during the 2013 sequestration in places like Huntsville, AL and Phoenix, AZ. My own parents moved because the projects that were previously assigned to my father's firm were not renewed by the Department of Defense due to budget cuts. And these are educated people that we want to encourage to have productive jobs in this country.
On the other hand, previous massive government investment creates jobs and externalities in positive and lasting ways. We are still reaping some of the rewards from Roosevelt era programs that created wonderful infrastructure. In the 1960s, 4% of the entire federal budget was dedicated to the space race. NASA employed over 400,000 people and managed to go from nearly nothing to a man on the moon in a decade. If you really think about how astonishing that is, it's simply staggering. Further, the things we learned and developed during that period created a springboard for all kinds of technologies that were not even imaginable in the 1940s. Computing, miniaturization, and materials science lept forward just incredibly rapidly and that technological innovation forms the basis for much of our current wealth. The benefits are both immediate, employing and incentivizing the creation of more trained professionals in the populace, and long-term. It makes everyone richer and gives us all something to believe it that makes it worth it to be American and alive (I'm of the opinion that the lunar lander should be on our $100 bill).
I propose as follows: increased tax revenue from assessments on the wealthy be directly applied, as part of the same bill that raises taxes, to targeted and direct research and development investment in some key areas. Clean energy, space exploration, biotechnology and life sciences, etc etc. A silicon valley approach to expenditure is, in many ways, the cleanest and fastest return on investment we could ever have. And it directly puts people to work. Even if some of those fail, it doesn't really matter. One successful moon shot reaps rewards that are incalculable.
Further, in order to argue that this is good policy doesn't require me to win that this sort of true jobs program would be better than having the private sector spend the same money (although I would take that argument). It only requires me to win that this program would be better than having the top 1% or 0.1% hoard the wealth that they have been accumulating. And I don't think that it's going to take much to prove that hoarding is an inefficient social waste of resources.
TBH: It barely works even if you get a high end graduate degree. My age range has a lot of very indebted doctors and lawyers. For this, I mostly blame US News and World Report, along with no conditional tuition cap as a student loan funding requirement.
I will totally botch the quote button, so I summarize in free form.
AR,
I really don't have a problem with any of your second derivative rebuttal arguments. Over the years, I have soften some of my more right economic leanings. Not as far leaning as you, but certainly enough to perhaps meet somewhere in the 68% distribution of the Gaussian curve.
Very nice point on the tax policy in combination with the min wage policy. The two must be taken together and both can't be gutted. I have zero problem with this logic, particularly given the undeniable fact that the min wage has not kept up with any meaningful inflation adjustment. Touche. While it is too early to tell definitively, the crack in the economic argument against raising the minimum wage is starting grow with the Seattle experiment. Barry Ritholz at The Big Picture blog has followed this very closely and fairly. I do think that my larger point still holds...please have a plan not be working at 40 for minimum wage, regardless of the level of minimum wage. That is more of a "mentoring" statement as opposed to an economic/political statement.
Taking the min wage as a subset of other entitlements, this is where the political right has dropped the ball. You can still be for common sense taxation levels, free market economies/economic freedom, government accountability or whatever wild, wild west economic principles you believe in WHILE simultaneously believing that there should be some floor of basic decency. The Republicans have willingly walked into this trap door like a bunch of tuna caught in a net. Let's be honest, it is not like welfare is busting the budget.
There maybe welfare queens, but there are no happy welfare queens. Furthermore, with the Clinton/Congress welfare reforms I think it is a safe assumption that they have created about as an efficient of a system as possible.
And just to be clear, SS and Medicare are not entitlement programs.
By the way, well beyond the scope of this discussion, but highly relevant to this is the addiction issues in this country. As you know, this is a key cog into our entire discussion, but way beyond my circle of competence. It needs to be addressed, somehow, someway. It is a national crisis.
Regarding the taxation of the 1%. I don't have a problem with some type of long term phase-in of higher rates, if nothing else as an experiment to see the results. Most of the 1% doesn't seem to mind. Also, for the record, the carried interest exemption is total BS and needs to go. I am also for a complete overhaul of the publicly traded CEO compensation system that is a complete rape of shareholders. The last major overhaul (I think in the early 90s?) had good intentions, but has totally backfired. Stock Awards, Restricted Stock, qualified/non-qualified options...it is all BS. They were all designed under the guise to align with shareholder interests and have evolved into fleecing shareholders and reducing taxes on outright compensation.
You can throw in an overhaul of the good old boy/girl's network of corporate boards. I don't need to tell you that you have CEO's whose companies are run like crap sitting on other board's of companies advising them on corporate governance. What a gravy train that has turned into. It is a disgrace that hides under the skirts of compensation consultants. Makes me want to vomit. It is the dirtiest little secret of public companies.
You blew me away with your military analysis. SPOT ON!!! This country can't possibly slash the defense budgets as many suggest. It would be economic suicide on the level of the great depression. If you slashed the forces in half and slashed the long term projects to the bare bone, how many people would be directly and indirectly displaced? I don't even think it can be calculated with any degree of certainty.
Yes to the infastructure argument. There is almost zero credence in any argument against this in theory. Pulling it off without massive waste and abuse might be another thing....
Your last point is just fine. I would like to see this in conjunction with some ideas on how to get companies to start loosening the rains on the cash on the balance sheets. I get the whole Corporate Finance 101 thing about project investing, stock buy backs, dividends....OK, blah blah blah. If I have see one more CEO of a public company buy back their stock at inflated prices and brag about it I am going to puke. They might as well take the cash and burn it in the company incinerator.
I don't know what the answer is to motivate to invest in projects, but it needs to be looked. The amount of money on public company balance sheet is mind boggling.
With my *** kissing of you aside, my larger point is for you young folks not to get too caught up in the hyperbole. It is fun and you should be active in the process, but you have to take care of the home turf and constantly improve yourself. As Charlie Munger likes to stress...education and improving yourself is a life long endeavor. I am stressing this point from a Randian perspective but from a perspective of somebody long in the tooth who sees plenty of people reach 50+ years and look around and wondering what the heck happened and where is has the dream gone? Where is the politicians that promised me everything would be OK?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
This was never a point that I was making. No developed nation has the exact same profile/combination/construct of publically-structured institutions of welfare, health-care, and education as another. A mischaracterization on your part.
I was having a little fun-- as one does on sports forums.
You clearly lack reading comprehension if you could not decipher the tongue-in-cheek nature of me welcoming a long-dead political figure to Jazzfanz in 2016.
Only if your campaign can "find me" (as in buy me under the table) some of those New Balance walking shoes with the velcro straps. Pretty much standard gear for mall walkers.