Politics And Current Events

[columbia]

So what explains why the Libertarian Party is essentially a failure?

[ExPatriatePen]

So the perceived success or failure of a political party is a telltale for economics how?

Not sure I follow your leap in logic?

No third party has ever been successful in the last 100 years. There are enough reasons for that that it could justify its own thread.

[MWB]

I think the point is that if the owner is keeping the extra money made instead of passing it down to the workers, then that's an issue.

There are approximately 100,000 Microsoft employees who provide for themselves and their families. Their combined charitable donations exceeded $1 billion last year. They paid hundreds of millions (if not a billion) dollars in taxes last year.
That money was spent, in part, on mechanics, in grocery stores, coffee shops, on baby sitters, lawn services, etc, providing even more jobs.

Gates money (Billions) certainly didn't lower the living standards of the folks in Seattle or else where.

That doesn't really connect to what I posted.

[Troy Loney]

Sarcastic, it's got nothing to do with "trickle down" that's a whole 'nother discussion.

It's about wether or not the increase in the Top %1 comes at the expense of the rest of society. It doesn't. Are you saying that when Bill Gates made $100K his first year after founding MIcrosoft, that all of his gains since then came at the expense of the rest of society? Rockefeller? Ford? Etc... It doesn't work like that.

It's got to do with the fact that an economy with severely concentrated wealth eventually leads to structural disintegration and increasing disestablishment. When fewer people control the money and the power, the extent of structural growth is limited by less incentive to improve the country as a whole. More wealth is inherited, and those individuals are less interested in the structural requirements for increasing business and making more money. Their only interest seems to be paying less taxes.

Capitalism > Communism. Socialism has never existed, and never will. So we'll never actually know. What we do know is that increasing income inequality is unsustainable and a large global disruption is likely to occur if the current trends continue.

The best thing to do is to tax income less, but increase the tax burden on estate transfers and accumulated wealth.

Citations? Examples even?

Hmm...like when the government had to bail out the financial companies after they wrecked the economy?

On an aggregate level, who do you think profited from that mess, and who is stuck eating the losses.

[columbia]

So the perceived success or failure of a political party is a telltale for economics how?

Not sure I follow your leap in logic?

No third party has ever been successful in the last 100 years. There are enough reasons for that that it could justify its own thread.

Money in - or lack thereof in this case and for the other off brand parties - is most certainly a factor.

Blech, I really wish the U.S. had a parliamentary system instead of the current bs.

[ExPatriatePen]

I think the point is that if the owner is keeping the extra money made instead of passing it down to the workers, then that's an issue.

There are approximately 100,000 Microsoft employees who provide for themselves and their families. Their combined charitable donations exceeded $1 billion last year. They paid hundreds of millions (if not a billion) dollars in taxes last year.
That money was spent, in part, on mechanics, in grocery stores, coffee shops, on baby sitters, lawn services, etc, providing even more jobs.

Gates money (Billions) certainly didn't lower the living standards of the folks in Seattle or else where.

That doesn't really connect to what I posted.

How does it not? Gates kept a small fortune in just his last year at Microsoft. In other words, he didn't "pass that money down to his workers". And yet all of the things I cited are accurate. How is that taking money from the poor as it would have to be in a "Zero Sum game"?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Sarcastic, it's got nothing to do with "trickle down" that's a whole 'nother discussion.

It's about wether or not the increase in the Top %1 comes at the expense of the rest of society. It doesn't. Are you saying that when Bill Gates made $100K his first year after founding MIcrosoft, that all of his gains since then came at the expense of the rest of society? Rockefeller? Ford? Etc... It doesn't work like that.

It's got to do with the fact that an economy with severely concentrated wealth eventually leads to structural disintegration and increasing disestablishment. When fewer people control the money and the power, the extent of structural growth is limited by less incentive to improve the country as a whole. More wealth is inherited, and those individuals are less interested in the structural requirements for increasing business and making more money. Their only interest seems to be paying less taxes.

Capitalism > Communism. Socialism has never existed, and never will. So we'll never actually know. What we do know is that increasing income inequality is unsustainable and a large global disruption is likely to occur if the current trends continue.

The best thing to do is to tax income less, but increase the tax burden on estate transfers and accumulated wealth.

Citations? Examples even?

Hmm...like when the government had to bail out the financial companies after they wrecked the economy?

On an aggregate level, who do you think profited from that mess, and who is stuck eating the losses.

Of course the irony there is that the people the Left like to mock in the GOP (Michelle Bachmann especially) voted against the bank bailouts and tried to stop it. The corporatist parts of both parties made sure that it went through, was signed by GWB, and Obama then prevented any criminal charges.

[ExPatriatePen]

Sarcastic, it's got nothing to do with "trickle down" that's a whole 'nother discussion.

It's about wether or not the increase in the Top %1 comes at the expense of the rest of society. It doesn't. Are you saying that when Bill Gates made $100K his first year after founding MIcrosoft, that all of his gains since then came at the expense of the rest of society? Rockefeller? Ford? Etc... It doesn't work like that.

It's got to do with the fact that an economy with severely concentrated wealth eventually leads to structural disintegration and increasing disestablishment. When fewer people control the money and the power, the extent of structural growth is limited by less incentive to improve the country as a whole. More wealth is inherited, and those individuals are less interested in the structural requirements for increasing business and making more money. Their only interest seems to be paying less taxes.

Capitalism > Communism. Socialism has never existed, and never will. So we'll never actually know. What we do know is that increasing income inequality is unsustainable and a large global disruption is likely to occur if the current trends continue.

The best thing to do is to tax income less, but increase the tax burden on estate transfers and accumulated wealth.

Citations? Examples even?

Hmm...like when the government had to bail out the financial companies after they wrecked the economy?

On an aggregate level, who do you think profited from that mess, and who is stuck eating the losses.

That's not a result of the concentration of wealth by the 1%. That's because our financial system lacks the appropriate circuit breakers to insure the free flow of credit in a deflationary cycle.

A VERY REAL PROBLEM. But it has nothing to do with the relative dispersion of individual wealth. That's a completely separate economic conundrum.

[ExPatriatePen]

So the perceived success or failure of a political party is a telltale for economics how?

Not sure I follow your leap in logic?

No third party has ever been successful in the last 100 years. There are enough reasons for that that it could justify its own thread.

Money in - or lack thereof in this case and for the other off brand parties - is most certainly a factor.

Blech, I really wish the U.S. had a parliamentary system instead of the current bs.

And here I thought that the failure of the libertarian party was that their ideology was perceived to be flawed by the general populous?
So you're saying that it's all because they lack the money to have a stronger "voice".
If only it were that simple. Your arch protagonists the Koch brothers only wish it were so simple.

(Edit to correct the appropriate spelling of the word "their")

[columbia]

Perceived rather than is?

You're defending a framework which is designed to squelch....your views.

[MWB]

I think the point is that if the owner is keeping the extra money made instead of passing it down to the workers, then that's an issue.

There are approximately 100,000 Microsoft employees who provide for themselves and their families. Their combined charitable donations exceeded $1 billion last year. They paid hundreds of millions (if not a billion) dollars in taxes last year.
That money was spent, in part, on mechanics, in grocery stores, coffee shops, on baby sitters, lawn services, etc, providing even more jobs.

Gates money (Billions) certainly didn't lower the living standards of the folks in Seattle or else where.

That doesn't really connect to what I posted.

How does it not? Gates kept a small fortune in just his last year at Microsoft. In other words, he didn't "pass that money down to his workers". And yet all of the things I cited are accurate. How is that taking money from the poor as it would have to be in a "Zero Sum game"?

When you say that if the pie expands, everyone gets some, that's not true if the person at the top gets all of the expansion. It's not "taking from the poor," it's just that the money stays at the top.

[Troy Loney]

Sarcastic, it's got nothing to do with "trickle down" that's a whole 'nother discussion.

It's about wether or not the increase in the Top %1 comes at the expense of the rest of society. It doesn't. Are you saying that when Bill Gates made $100K his first year after founding MIcrosoft, that all of his gains since then came at the expense of the rest of society? Rockefeller? Ford? Etc... It doesn't work like that.

It's got to do with the fact that an economy with severely concentrated wealth eventually leads to structural disintegration and increasing disestablishment. When fewer people control the money and the power, the extent of structural growth is limited by less incentive to improve the country as a whole. More wealth is inherited, and those individuals are less interested in the structural requirements for increasing business and making more money. Their only interest seems to be paying less taxes.

Capitalism > Communism. Socialism has never existed, and never will. So we'll never actually know. What we do know is that increasing income inequality is unsustainable and a large global disruption is likely to occur if the current trends continue.

The best thing to do is to tax income less, but increase the tax burden on estate transfers and accumulated wealth.

Citations? Examples even?

Hmm...like when the government had to bail out the financial companies after they wrecked the economy?

On an aggregate level, who do you think profited from that mess, and who is stuck eating the losses.

That's not a result of the concentration of wealth by the 1%. That's because our financial system lacks the appropriate circuit breakers to insure the free flow of credit in a deflationary cycle.

A VERY REAL PROBLEM. But it has nothing to do with the relative dispersion of individual wealth. That's a completely separate economic conundrum.

So what's your solution for disentangling the rulers of the financial world from the government? Because as I see it they operate pretty much hand in hand. The system basically gives the banks unlimited cheap capital to do as they see fit...how do you think that sort of economy emerged?

The same problem that allowed for the concentration of economic power had lead to the concentration of wealth. I think our first step is to acknowledge we are a closer to an oligarchy than any other system. So as long as we pretend that supply side, conservative economic solutions alleviate this mess, we're stuck. Unfortunately the Democratic Party is just as involved in this web, so their liberal guilt policies throw tokens to the poor, they don't address the problems with income inequality.

We are for some reason unable to fully acknowledge the connection between financial and political power. The current system makes the two synonymous.

[count2infinity]

We are for some reason unable to fully acknowledge the connection between financial and political power. The current system makes the two synonymous.

Wasn't there just a study done the other year that concluded that we are no longer in a democracy, but rather a full blown oligarchy? If you don't have money, you don't have a voice.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Awesome news...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/s ... z3Zfm93ZC7

[dodint]

Who's cherry picking. You may pick any of the companies you posted just as well. If you're wife makes $14 an hour as a paralegal, you should be on my side because she's getting screwed as well. It is this type of attitude, actually, that makes billionaires laugh at YOU because you're on their side while they're screwing you over, you just don't see it. Understand, though, that middle class is shrinking. I'll assume you're middle-class here. There may come time, where you may join the poor people and will you then stick up for the business class that's screwing you over and blame yourself due to some inflated sense of pride they preach to you? It's an act. It's a game. People who earn a meager check have such sense of pride, they don't even think about asking for more social equality and the most hilarious examples of that are the poor down south or some of the tea party who scream against that, then you notice they have no teeth in their mouth. You're being screwed over and you don't see it. You tax money are stolen. Your wages are cut. And you're with the people who did it.

You seem mad, man. Or at the very least, emotional. So I'm out.

[obhave]

Awesome news...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/s ... z3Zfm93ZC7

This reminded me about Notorious R.B.G getting a biopic, which I'm actually kind of excited about.

[shafnutz05]

Awesome news...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/s ... z3Zfm93ZC7

This reminded me about Notorious R.B.G getting a biopic, which I'm actually kind of excited about.

She probably has a pretty fascinating life story to tell. The thought of a rom-com featuring Barack and Michelle falling in love is nauseating.

[obhave]

Awesome news...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/s ... z3Zfm93ZC7

This reminded me about Notorious R.B.G getting a biopic, which I'm actually kind of excited about.

She probably has a pretty fascinating life story to tell. The thought of a rom-com featuring Barack and Michelle falling in love is nauseating.

The idea of any president being part of a rom com is nauseating.

[Factorial]

The thought of a rom-com featuring Barack and Michelle falling in love is nauseating.

I can imagine as you're more of a George and Barbara rom-com kind of guy.

[shafnutz05]

The thought of a rom-com featuring Barack and Michelle falling in love is nauseating.

I can imagine as you're more of a George and Barbara rom-com kind of guy.

Outside of some incredible story, I don't see why any presidential couple should be featured in a Hollywood rom-com. I mean, I get that it will probably have an audience, and it's probably because they are the first black family in the WH, but it's just dumb to me.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I'm actually kind of surprised there has never been a Dolly Madison biopic.

[shafnutz05]

I'm actually kind of surprised there has never been a Dolly Madison biopic.

Agreed. I think her life story would be pretty damned fascinating.

Southside With You is about the Obamas’ first outing in 1989 when Obama and lawyer Michelle Robinson visited the Art Institute of Chicago and watched a screening of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The pair also apparently kissed outside an ice cream parlour.

At the time, Obama was a first-year Harvard Law student working as an associate at Chicago law firm Sidley Austin, where the younger Robinson was his boss. The Obamas married in 1992.

Two privileged 20-somethings start dating and eventually get married. FASCINATING. COMPELLING.

[Freddy Rumsen]

This just happened not far from me.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/09/two-p ... cal-media/

[Reveutopique]

I don't know of any examples of any actual "Randian" ideas that are actually in place. We are not even close to having any Von Misean or Hayekian structures in our current economy. It would certainly be better for all if either men's ideas were allowed to have a place rather than heavily regulated and chained-to-the-swamp-in-D.C. economy we have now.

YES. AGREED.

[tifosi77]

I recently posted here that just 80 people own as much wealth as half the planet. There's your problem. The playing field isn't even and the wealthy group keeps grabbing more and more...

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, there you go with the zero sum game again.

Where does this idea come from that for every dollar a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett has, that some 'poor person' has to have less? There's no economic justification for that. It's just not so.

There isn't? I'd like to take your word for it but umm you have any source material to back that up?

Say 5 people are splitting 10 dollars. 1 takes 50%, the rest split the other 50%. Now say that it goes to 20 dollars, and that it is now split 60% to that one person, so 12 dollars to that 1 person, While the rest now split 8 dollars. Yes the wealth distribution has gotten worse in the sense of percentage, but everyone is making more money. The percentage distribution isn't a problem unless the "other 4" people are getting less than they previously were.

Very simple, crude method shown above.

Well there you go; the problem is that, relative to ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, the 'other 4' absolutely are getting less in terms of spending power. The dollar amount is greater, but in relation to the cost of goods, it's actually a good bit less.

That's like the whole minimum wage debate; indexed to inflation (which it should be), the federal minimum wage today should actually be over $11/hr to keep pace with the increase in the cost of goods compared to the last time it was raised.