All_Pro_Bills Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 minute ago, TheBrownBear said: This is correct, but I chafe at the idea that they are either/or, or that one is inherently good and the other inherently bad. Sometimes circumstances demand one type of governmental intervention over the other (or even both at the same time). And while Biden is generally more of a demand-side intervention type, the Third Way democrats (Clinton/Gore, Obama) were generally pro-business and minimal regulations (i.e., supply side) guys. I'm not saying you're explicitly doing this here, but just wanted to point out that there is a lot of nuance when it comes to economics that goes over many people's heads. Whatever anybody wants to call it when the government hands out trillions of borrowed money to people to consume goods and services without requiring them to produce any equivalent output of goods and services or creates businesses that require subsidies to produce products or services nobody wants at "market prices" it creates an imbalance in the supply and demand of things which generally plays out through adverse consequences such as inflation. 1
Lost Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said: And so then how do you fix the people? This is tougher and is really the crux of the matter. We can have the jobs and the resources but if nobody wants to work for an honest pay then it's all for naught 30 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: We need good living wages, safe conditions, and an opportunity to retire with dignity. We need people who take pride in their work. That should be the backbone of this country. Not people sitting at home smoking and playing video games and making TikToks. “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf We are at the weak men stage of society and social media is the root cause of it. When some of the top paying and most aspired careers in the modern era are social media influencer and Onlyfans model(which is debatable if these professions even provide any inherent value) then our society may be soon due for a rude economic wakening. 3
Tommy Callahan Posted July 16 Posted July 16 7 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said: This is correct, but I chafe at the idea that they are either/or, or that one is inherently good and the other inherently bad. Sometimes circumstances demand one type of governmental intervention over the other (or even both at the same time). And while Biden is generally more of a demand-side intervention type, the Third Way democrats (Clinton/Gore, Obama) were generally pro-business and minimal regulations (i.e., supply side) guys. I'm not saying you're explicitly doing this here, but just wanted to point out that there is a lot of nuance when it comes to economics that goes over many people's heads. I agree there are times and reasons for state intervention or even stimulus. It should be the exception, not policy. One is much better as it creates and maintains a natural economy and the wealth stays in the bottom four quintiles. And do totally agree that the modern Dems are pro fortune 500 at the expense of main Street. (Another side affects of corporatism at the federal level) 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: parents who were taking their children out of literacy classes because the possibility of improved academic performance would threaten $700-a-month Social Security disability benefits, which increasingly are paid out for nebulous afflictions such as loosely defined learning disorders. “This is painful for a liberal to admit,” Kristof wrote, “but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency.” Chicken or egg? What kind of person mortgages their child's future for $700/month? Desperate, evil or both? Either way, they're likely irredeemable when they get to this point. I can't imagine any federal program that would fix profound character flaws but starvation isn't a good look for the richest country on earth. 1
Tiberius Posted July 16 Posted July 16 46 minutes ago, T master said: First off if you raise the minimum wage to $20 it will cause most everything that requires a human being no matter how menial the task to have to have a increase in pricing that's number 1 . Number 2 if that happens and say a laborer that works for me & me being a mason i have to charge more to the customer because i have to pay out more, not to mention that i have 25 yrs of experience & if a rookie that has 2 yrs is making that much then i'm being under paid now so again my prices are going to go up especially if i have to pay for their health care, work mens comp, & so on . Then you have the fact that the McDonalds worker that you laid off that has little to no skills per say goes into the unemployment system to look for a job and due to the fact that they have little to no skills per say after they run out their unemployment not being able to find work then they go on to welfare because of course they won't go and be a block masons tender that is actual for real physical labor which young people won't do . The majority of the younger generation has been taught that they are American so they are of the Entitlement mind set i can see raising the minimum wage as a total Cluster F !! Oh also stop entitlement mind set & illegal immigration and have parents have their children go mow & rake lawns to make money so they can spend the money they earn to go buy a new ipad and have more appreciation for it instead of just giving everything to them !! To follow that up here's a theory, go back to the gold standard, stop printing money any time you need more, make the gov't live with in a budget like most of us have to instead of giving away trillions of dollars for every body & any body with their hand out, have more checks and balances for those getting entitlements, allow schools to bring back skilled trades programs & then bring the manufacturing jobs back to American soil so those people can have more opportunity and earn their way into a better life . Dammit i think i might be on to something here Tibs don't you ??? Yup, raising minimum wage too high won't get more people working. Going back on the gold standard would be massively deflationary and would cause a massive constriction of the economy. As to the lawn mowing, won't all the kids want riding mowers to make it easy, even if the lawn is the size of a postage stamp? That seems the case in most places these days. Seems funny, we are still focusing on Appalachian poor people, wasn't that what LBJ was trying to fix in Great Society? Sure worked, huh? Same as it ever was, and nothing but complaining from West Virginia and those places, like its all someone else's fault. 1 1
reddogblitz Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Seems Biden did a good job going standing in that UAW picket line while Trump went to a non-union shop. Trump now has to pick Vance now to try and recover his union voters. Was that the one where President Biden had his hard had on backwards? 1
Tiberius Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Just now, reddogblitz said: Was that the one where President Biden had his hard had on backwards? Fits in with the rest of the Union workers that way 🤣 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) 8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: So again, 40+ years and we're still kind of in the same place. Smaller scale manufacturing is doing just fine in the USA, but the big industries are still suffering. I've come around to thinking that nothing will bring those back since other/lower cost producers just have a comparative advantage now that we can't defeat without bankrupting the country and/or the American consumer. It's because ever since keynsian economics went belly-up in the 70s, nobody has found a way to turn the wealth generated by supply side economics into the sort of community driven, broad-based prosperity that keynsian economics provided before stagflation destroyed it. The answer was Neo-Liberalism, Globalism, and both parties accepting Trickle-Down economics at a fundamental level, but with varying degrees of extremity. The cult of quarterly returns stopped training and developing workers, stopped providing workers with a direct stake in the company's prosperity through free or heavily subsidized stock options, and started the "race to the bottom" for wage costs. To pivot back, Vance may end up being a blood-spitting protectionist. Great! Some industries and capabilities need protecting (what's happened to our ship building industry is a ***** travesty for example, and our MIC is custom built to smash 3rd World Countries with brutal overmatch while China is building out capabilities to fight an Old Fashioned WWIII with WWII style production) But nothing about his record says he's going to do anything but help update the Reaganomics mantra for 2024. Which is more tax cuts, more deregulation, and driving the working class and middle class to push more and more of their ever-shrinking paychecks into the stock market if they want a prayer of retiring. Where his investment banker buddies will happily lap it up, just like they did the pension funds of the workers, and break-up values of the industries that won WWII. Edited July 16 by Coffeesforclosers 1 1
Pokebball Posted July 17 Posted July 17 19 hours ago, LeGOATski said: Seems like a yes man politician so far, but I'm interested to see where it goes. He definitely has a more interesting profile than the former VP Pence. The fact he was a never trumper suggests to me he thinks for himself
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 17 Posted July 17 24 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: It's because ever since keynsian economics went belly-up in the 70s, nobody has found a way to turn the wealth generated by supply side economics into the sort of community driven, broad-based prosperity that keynsian economics provided before stagflation destroyed it. The answer was Neo-Liberalism, Globalism, and both parties accepting Trickle-Down economics at a fundamental level, but with varying degrees of extremity. The cult of quarterly returns stopped training and developing workers, stopped providing workers with a direct stake in the company's prosperity through free or heavily subsidized stock options, and started the "race to the bottom" for wage costs. To pivot back, Vance may end up being a blood-spitting protectionist. Great! Some industries and capabilities need protecting (what's happened to our ship building industry is a ***** travesty for example, and our MIC is custom built to smash 3rd World Countries with brutal overmatch while China is building out capabilities to fight an Old Fashioned WWIII with WWII style production) But nothing about his record says he's going to do anything but help update the Reaganomics mantra for 2024. Which is more tax cuts, more deregulation, and driving the working class and middle class to push more and more of their ever-shrinking paychecks into the stock market if they want a prayer of retiring. Where his investment banker buddies will happily lap it up, just like they did the pension funds of the workers, and break-up values of the industries that won WWII. You’ve got some very strong feelings on the equities market—what drives that thought process? 2
LeGOATski Posted July 17 Posted July 17 13 minutes ago, Pokebball said: The fact he was a never trumper suggests to me he thinks for himself He reneged on that once Trump came to power, so it's the opposite to me. "Oh, you're in power now? Yes, sir! Whatever you want, sir!" I'd prefer someone who's strategically reserved and toes the line rather than someone who just flip-flops to different extremes. That's the hallmark of someone who can't think for themselves.
4th&long Posted July 17 Posted July 17 2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said: He reneged on that once Trump came to power, so it's the opposite to me. "Oh, you're in power now? Yes, sir! Whatever you want, sir!" I'd prefer someone who's strategically reserved and toes the line rather than someone who just flip-flops to different extremes. That's the hallmark of someone who can't think for themselves. I prefer someone who doesn’t wear eye liner.
LeGOATski Posted July 17 Posted July 17 8 minutes ago, 4th&long said: I prefer someone who doesn’t wear eye liner. Get with the times, man.... 1
Pokebball Posted July 17 Posted July 17 2 hours ago, LeGOATski said: He reneged on that once Trump came to power, so it's the opposite to me. "Oh, you're in power now? Yes, sir! Whatever you want, sir!" I'd prefer someone who's strategically reserved and toes the line rather than someone who just flip-flops to different extremes. That's the hallmark of someone who can't think for themselves. I guess the way I see it are the repubs that don't like trump can either disengage or engage and fix the party from within. I'm glad those that expressed a dislike for trump are trying to become part of the fix. Trump is done after this term
Recommended Posts