Printable View
Wow. (former) Big Time Trump-Supporter and dinner guest neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes is hopping mad that his (former) lord and savior has now confessed to lying to him and all the other numbskulls he conned into defending him, supporting him and committing crimes for him:
[B]Trump confesses, "He (Biden) beat us"[/B]
[URL]https://youtu.be/AKP8fu-Tu04?si=j9RtHoDiib-Mphg6[/URL]
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943866]
However, apparently they have not gone completely under. Despite their atrocious mismanagement, it appears the USA Economy is doing so well even a badly managed restaurant chain that serves overpriced crap food can keep hundreds of their locations open:
[B]Red Lobster cleared to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Red Lobster will operate 544 locations across North America.[/B]
[URL]https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/red-lobster-cleared-exit-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection[/URL]
Americans have discretionary money to burn, apparently.
Thanks, Joe. I think.[/QUOTE]By all means, thanks Joe, you taught American students that they do not have to pay their debts, that Red Lobster screwing their creditors is smart, and we do not have to issue any debt now, we can just print money. I agree that Republicans cannot compete with economic policies like those popularity wise in elections.
Seeing as how bankruptcy and not paying back debts is good now, are you Dems going to apologize to Trump for putting some of his business in foreclosure? Or is this just more of whatever Dems do is good and Republicans do is bad, even if it is the same thing?
I could actually make the case that voting for Kamala is better for me personally as her fucking up the economy and my betting against it is as close to a sure thing as there is. I am not sure Trump will be able to fix things either but at least there is a fighting chance.
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943917]If USA eliminates the electoral college and switches to a popular vote, the only areas politicians would campaign in would be large urban cities. That's how they would garner the most support and votes. What incentive would a politician have to travel to a small rural town on the campaign trail to get a very small amount of votes? Basically anyone living outside of a large metropolitan area would be insignificant in terms of winning the presidential election. Those small town populations are still extremely important. They best understand the issues affecting their community.
An example of that is the Southern New Jersey coast right now. They are trying to build wind farms all along the coast which most residents hate and don't want it to happen for several reasons. It will effect the boating and fishing industries as well as have an environmental impact. Politicians at the national level and more urban Northern NJ are pushing it through anyway. It will most likely also lower property values all along the coast. New Jersey for the most part is very urban, but Southern NJ is actually more rural and suburban. The urban population is using their superior voting power to push an agenda which will enrich them through these wind farm contracts, and it is coming at the expense of rural community voters who don't want wind farms all over their coasts.
This is just a state issue too. If you eliminate the electoral college, urban cities will have the voting power to get whatever they want and it will come at the expense of rural communities and the vast natural resources that support those industries. Agriculture, mining, timber, fresh water, fishing, and many other industries those local people work in will have their profits start to be siphoned off as they lose voting power. That is just the nature of the beast / large Corporations. The people who spent their lives living around their natural resources usually have the best understanding of how they should be utilized without damaging their environment and communities. They should have the most say in what is happening to their environment. Not some big city 1000 miles away across the country.
That is why the electoral college is so important. It protects the voting power of people and resources outside the large urban cities. Think of the things San Francisco advocates for and think of things a small town in Texas advocates for. It is totally different. Small rural populations need to have a voice too.[/QUOTE]Instead of majority rule. You would instead have the rural areas of the country to make rules for the masses. So whatever quirky idea / Tradition is imparted to "urban" areas.
I will agree that it creates a situation where the candidates will mainly go to population centers. I disagree that all population centers will always be for one party or another. If a candidates provide the voters with their best plans, the best plan will win out. You also have 2 senators representing each state, giving them the power to legislate to advocate for their constituents. Elections are not about one person (President), but putting representatives for its citizen.
As an aside:
For years, republicans have focused on state ballots, congressional candidates, senate candidates, governorship, and worked the system to make sure they're majority in something. Since Trump, everything is about him, and the neglect for the down ballots will be the downfall of the party.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943831]When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women.
One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights. This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.
Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.[/QUOTE]I'm convinced that capitalism, free markets, and rule of law work best. To the extent those have been implemented, they've lifted billions out of poverty and are better than the alternatives. I don't mean unfettered or crony capitalism. You do need appropriate regulation, protections for workers, etc.
Thanks for bringing up what you have. I've read up a little on narcosynicalism, and more than a little on MMT and am looking forward to learning more. As you say we may disagree, strongly on economic issues, but this has been an educational experience for me. I'm going to have to slow down on the posts for a while as I'm getting behind on work but will look forward to checking back.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2943778]And I guess the way the government pays the people making the ponies is that it prints money and gives it to the them right?
I want to understand this more too. We do not need to go into debt. Given that a nation defaults historically when a third of its income is used to pay interest on the debt, and we are there now, why do we not just quit issuing debt? If you do not have debt, you cannot go broke, so we can just tell the credit agencies to fuck off then. Gee, I wonder what would happen if we did that. I am sure that would be fine.
And we do not have to pay any interest if we do not issue debt. That is brilliant. We can tell all those people getting 5% interest now, you are going to get zero and like it. What a cost saving move that would be. I cannot think of any downside to that either.
In the Movie Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey was handing out pieces of paper / IOUs to pay for things after he blew all his money and swore those IOUs were as good as gold. Is that where MMT came from? Are you sure all these Democratic economists did not just steal the idea from Jim Carey?[/QUOTE]As I understand it, with MMT you DO issue debt, lots of it to fund government spending. You don't literally print paper money, at least the way we'd implement this in the USA. It wouldn't surprise me though if they literally fired up the printing presses in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Anyway the central bank fiddles with bank reserves and perhaps also buys government debt to create more money. Seemingly small changes in bank reserves can create a lot of money because of the multiplier effect and velocity of money. The big issue though is that with MMT you're going to run the national debt way up, and greatly increase the amount of Treasury securities in circulation.
Yeah, I don't see how you keep interest rates low. Theoretically you can do it through the Fed, by setting short term rates at low levels and buying longer term bonds. But eventually that should catch up with you. Turkey tried to do that and failed miserably. Inflation soared. And Turkey's national debt wasn't out of control. What happens if the MMT theorists were wrong and they can't control the interest rate? What happens if you have to raise rates to the levels of the late 70's / early 80's? Or higher? Maybe something like what Nigeria's experiencing now. I read they spent around 70% of their budget on debt service last year and 90% year before last. Or alternately the Fed does keep the interest rate low, but inflation as a result skyrockets and we end up with something like Turkey, where people lose faith in the dollar? Intuitively, I don't think this is worth the risk. We've got the world's reserve currency. There are a lot of "seeming" advantages to that, like the ability to buy more from the rest of the world than we sell to it, and lower interest rates. The USA shouldn't want the rest of the world to abandon the dollar, and give that up.
I can't in my own mind kill the idea with 100% certainty though, because Japan has gotten away with something like this, and I don't know why they've gotten off with just a stagnant economy instead of an economic disaster. And I haven't read much of what the MMT proponents wrote, mostly just the critiques and analysis. The criticism comes from some very smart economists, including Paul Krugman who's a progressive.
[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2943941]Instead of majority rule. You would instead have the rural areas of the country to make rules for the masses. So whatever quirky idea / Tradition is imparted to "urban" areas.
I will agree that it creates a situation where the candidates will mainly go to population centers. I disagree that all population centers will always be for one party or another. If a candidates provide the voters with their best plans, the best plan will win out. You also have 2 senators representing each state, giving them the power to legislate to advocate for their constituents. Elections are not about one person (President), but putting representatives for its citizen.
As an aside:
For years, republicans have focused on state ballots, congressional candidates, senate candidates, governorship, and worked the system to make sure they're majority in something. Since Trump, everything is about him, and the neglect for the down ballots will be the downfall of the party.[/QUOTE]That doesn't happen because the majority of what the electoral vote is based on is population size. Again, this makes it so both populations in rural, urban, and suburban people are represented proportionally to some degree. South Dakota, a midwest state with an extremely small population, still receives some electoral votes and there fore cannot be ignored in a close election, but still does not garner anywhere near enough electoral votes to influence policy in a midwest city like Chicago or Minneapolis. I am not saying the electoral college is perfect, but it is absolutely better than a popular vote. All voices and communities need political voice and representation. Especially small communities that provide vital natural resources, especially our food and energy supply and a major part of our transportation system.
I would like to see it easier to vote though. Just make it online, all you need is social security number, turn your camera on your lap top and have your I. The. Scanned and vote from home. I think there is some corruption on both sides in regard to mail in ballots and disqualifying people's votes because they didn't fill out a form right. But maybe I am underestimating cyber criminals. I am just saying voting is a pain in the ass and should be easier this day and age. I hate standing in line LOL.
[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2943585]The insidious mental midget strikes again, "insidious crutch" aka the US Constitution.[/QUOTE]In 1969, your own [I][b]Repub President Richard Nixon, endorsed, a direct national election for President,[/b][/I] and called it [I]"...a thoroughly acceptable reform."[/I]
Unfortunately, a filibuster backed by segregationist Southerners in the Senate killed it.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943753]Hey Goatscrot, First, I largely agree with your post and think similarly. I've never thought about allowing individuals to exercise liberties, freedoms and rights in accordance with state or federal law, whichever is more liberal, but that makes good sense.
The Mises Caucus tried to take control of the Libertarian Party from the Gary Johnson wing a few years ago. And some of your criticisms, like intolerance and excessive Constitutionalism, are valid for them. However, they have since been booted to the ground like the scum they are. The Libertarian candidate for president this year, Chase Oliver, is a classical liberal from the Gary Johnson wing. He says he's armed and gay. And I suspect the only significant social policy you might disagree with Chase about is gun control.
The Libertarians would have to be closer to you on social issues than either of the major parties. The Progressive democrats might come closer than the rest, but they still condemn our lifestyle. On the other hand the Libertarians probably are farther from your beliefs on economic and foreign policy than the major parties. However the Gary Johnson Libertarians are kinder and gentler and stronger believers in a social safety net than the Mises Caucus, which again is probably history.
I don't have strong feelings about the Constitution, except that to the extent it protects individual liberties and rights and prevents a tyranny of the majority. I'm all on board with that.
I took a multiple choice test many years ago that would tell me which presidential candidates I should vote for. It came back with a tie, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Some would say they're as far apart on the political spectrum as two candidates can be. But on some issues they're like two peas in a pod. So it is with many of us.[/QUOTE]I myself prefer Donald "The Gangster" Trump and Bernie Sanders, they are my dream team.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory[/URL]
[QUOTE=Spidy;2943973]In 1969, your own [I][b]Repub President Richard Nixon, endorsed, a direct national election for President,[/b][/I] and called it [I]"...a thoroughly acceptable reform."[/I]
Unfortunately, a filibuster backed by segregationist Southerners in the Senate killed it.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.aol.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-cheneys-endorsement-harris-120722742.html[/URL]
And you like Dick too.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943947]As I understand it, with MMT you DO issue debt, lots of it to fund government spending. You don't literally print paper money, at least the way we'd implement this in the USA. It wouldn't surprise me though if they literally fired up the printing presses in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Anyway the central bank fiddles with bank reserves and perhaps also buys government debt to create more money. Seemingly small changes in bank reserves can create a lot of money because of the multiplier effect and velocity of money. The big issue though is that with MMT you're going to run the national debt way up, and greatly increase the amount of Treasury securities in circulation.
Yeah, I don't see how you keep interest rates low. Theoretically you can do it through the Fed, by setting short term rates at low levels and buying longer term bonds. But eventually that should catch up with you. Turkey tried to do that and failed miserably. Inflation soared. And Turkey's national debt wasn't out of control. What happens if the MMT theorists were wrong and they can't control the interest rate? What happens if you have to raise rates to the levels of the late 70's / early 80's? Or higher? Maybe something like what Nigeria's experiencing now. I read they spent around 70% of their budget on debt service last year and 90% year before last. Or alternately the Fed does keep the interest rate low, but inflation as a result skyrockets and we end up with something like Turkey, where people lose faith in the dollar? Intuitively, I don't think this is worth the risk. We've got the world's reserve currency. There are a lot of "seeming" advantages to that, like the ability to buy more from the rest of the world than we sell to it, and lower interest rates. The USA shouldn't want the rest of the world to abandon the dollar, and give that up.
I can't in my own mind kill the idea with 100% certainty though, because Japan has gotten away with something like this, and I don't know why they've gotten off with just a stagnant economy instead of an economic disaster. And I haven't read much of what the MMT proponents wrote, mostly just the critiques and analysis. The criticism comes from some very smart economists, including Paul Krugman who's a progressive.[/QUOTE]The debt is simply the number of dollars in circulation that have not been taxed back. The government is the sole source of currency. It is a currency issuer not a currency user. The government cannot run out of money and is in effect not really borrowing.
How has Japan been able to avoid rampant inflation? Well, they produce enough goods, and companies in Japan behave ethically. They believe it is their duty to society to not price gouge. In fact recently when certain goods had to increase in price because the cost of production went up companies apologized to the public for it. And yes they still make a profit.
[QUOTE=Spidy;2943973]In 1969, your own [I][b]Repub President Richard Nixon, endorsed, a direct national election for President,[/b][/I] and called it [I]"...a thoroughly acceptable reform."[/I]
Unfortunately, a filibuster backed by segregationist Southerners in the Senate killed it.[/QUOTE]The Southern United States has been holding the country back since inception. If it weren't for the southern Democrats Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights would have been enacted in the American people would have a wonderful set of benefits. But the southern Democrats torpedoed Henry Wallace and placed Harry Truman in the vice president slot for FDR's third term. If you haven't looked at Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights speech, you should.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943943]I'm convinced that capitalism, free markets, and rule of law work best. To the extent those have been implemented, they've lifted billions out of poverty and are better than the alternatives. I don't mean unfettered or crony capitalism. You do need appropriate regulation, protections for workers, etc.
Thanks for bringing up what you have. I've read up a little on narcosynicalism, and more than a little on MMT and am looking forward to learning more. As you say we may disagree, strongly on economic issues, but this has been an educational experience for me. I'm going to have to slow down on the posts for a while as I'm getting behind on work but will look forward to checking back.[/QUOTE]Unfettered capitalism without proper government regulation leads to exactly what we are seeing in the united states, a very few companies controlling the market. That is not good for the quality of goods or for the consumer. Marx was wrong about communism but he was spot on about end-stage capitalism.
There is absolutely no such thing as a free market. It is an always has been a unicorn.
Fiat currency is easy money. It is bad money; soft money. The only reason anyone uses it is because it is imposed by the government. This government impositions gets in the way of allowing the people to determine what money should be by means of the free market.
Since the government has the ability to issue fiat money and constantly increases the quantity of money available, it lose value. This loss of value robs all individuals in the society of their life energy. And prevents those who prefer saving and investing from being rewarded for their efforts into the future. It also makes it harder on consumers by the constant increase in prices and decrease in the value of the wages they earn.
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2944074]Fiat currency is easy money. It is bad money; soft money. The only reason anyone uses it is because it is imposed by the government. This government impositions gets in the way of allowing the people to determine what money should be by means of the free market.
Since the government has the ability to issue fiat money and constantly increases the quantity of money available, it lose value. This loss of value robs all individuals in the society of their life energy. And prevents those who prefer saving and investing from being rewarded for their efforts into the future. It also makes it harder on consumers by the constant increase in prices and decrease in the value of the wages they earn.[/QUOTE]Fiat currency is fantastic as it gives governments the flexibility to start programs like universal health care, pensions, etc. And as a matter of fact there's not enough specie to run the world's economy. Fiat currencies are here to stay. And again you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. The problem is fiscal. In the simple fact that corporations are allowed more influence than the electorate.
I don't know about you but I've done well in the era of fiat currencies.
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943960]That doesn't happen because the majority of what the electoral vote is based on is population size. Again, this makes it so both populations in rural, urban, and suburban people are represented proportionally to some degree. South Dakota, a midwest state with an extremely small population, still receives some electoral votes and there fore cannot be ignored in a close election, but still does not garner anywhere near enough electoral votes to influence policy in a midwest city like Chicago or Minneapolis. I am not saying the electoral college is perfect, but it is absolutely better than a popular vote. All voices and communities need political voice and representation. Especially small communities that provide vital natural resources, especially our food and energy supply and a major part of our transportation system.
I would like to see it easier to vote though. Just make it online, all you need is social security number, turn your camera on your lap top and have your I. The. Scanned and vote from home. I think there is some corruption on both sides in regard to mail in ballots and disqualifying people's votes because they didn't fill out a form right. But maybe I am underestimating cyber criminals. I am just saying voting is a pain in the ass and should be easier this day and age. I hate standing in line LOL.[/QUOTE]My suggestion would be automatically register every citizen based on natural records, such as high school records, driver's licence, etc. , so that you don't have to spend millions trying to convince people to register. So long as you can test out the online system, safe guard records and hack proof it, I would agree with it. Unfortunately, you have 10's of millions of people (older americans) who are not tech savvy, and that's where the current state of technology would not be possible. Easy way to ledger votes is using the cryptocurrency technology to track every vote. But again, this is future (at least 15 years away) elections.