Donald Trump

[BabyPeterzz]

And guess what, just like in most customer service jobs, customers are assholes. Yes, I know it's hard to believe but it's true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

While your personal anecdotes are great stories, they in no way represent the system as a whole. I'm sorry your wife worked with assholes, but that happens in the private sector too. If you're so unhappy with your service at the post office, why go to fedex or UPS instead. Cost you say? Yeah, unfortunately good stuff costs money, and under paid, stressed out public employees sometimes don't give a **** about your feelings. Get over it, or go to bat to increase pay and service for public institutions. As for all the other stuff, yeah most of that is due to limited resources and laziness. Boo hoo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I commented that I get better service in the private sector than the public. You said that was because of accountability issues. I gave specific examples that have nothing to do with accountability. You now say it has to do with pay and are giving me the boo hoo treatment. Makes sense.

BTW, who gets paid more, postal employees or grocery store clerks?

And regarding my ex's coworkers, they knew and bragged that they could not be fired. They also knew they had an early retirement and pension headed their way. I could give numerous examples of this in the public sector. Although you claim it's just as common in the private sector, I can't think of any examples. What I can think of are examples of people who got fired from private sector positions for doing a bad job.

 

[Deleted member 848]

While your personal anecdotes are great stories, they in no way represent the system as a whole.

should be one of those auto-responses to tons of posters on the right wing.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I commented that I get better service in the private sector than the public. You said that was because of accountability issues. I gave specific examples that have nothing to do with accountability. You now say it has to do with pay and are giving me the boo hoo treatment. Makes sense.

BTW, who gets paid more, postal employees or grocery store clerks?

And regarding my ex's coworkers, they knew and bragged that they could not be fired. They also knew they had an early retirement and pension headed their way. I could give numerous examples of this in the public sector. Although you claim it's just as common in the private sector, I can't think of any examples. What I can think of are examples of people who got fired from private sector positions for doing a bad job.

I didn't mention accountability at all. I said it was due to cost, and public procurement issues aka bureaucracy. You're whining using generalities and platitudes as grounds for complaints. I'm saying you don't understand the system. But if your going to complain because assholes exist, well I don't know what to tell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandyForRubio]

With a tax rate of 0.1% the model shows drops in GDP (-1.76%) in the long-run. It should be noted that these strong
results are related to the fact that the tax is cumulative and cascading which leads to rather strong economic reactions in
the model.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary), p. 50)
‘[A] stylised transaction tax on securities (STT), where it is assumed that all investment in the economy are financed with
the help of securities (shares and bonds) at 0.1% is simulated to cause output losses (i.e. deviation of GDP from its longrun
baseline level) of up to 1.76% in the long run, while yielding annual revenues of less than 0.1% of GDP.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary),
p. 33)
A reasonable estimate of the marginal rate of taxation for EU countries is 40-50% of any increase in GDP. That is, that
from all of the various taxes levied, 40-50% of any increase in GDP ends up as tax revenues to the respective governments.
Thus if we have a fall of 1.76% in GDP we have a fall in tax revenues of 0.7-0.9% of GDP. The proposed FTT is
a tax which collects 0.1% of GDP while other tax collections fall by 0.7-0.9% of GDP. It is very difficult indeed to describe
this as an increase in tax revenue.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...actions-tax-it-would-lose-money/#547852545974

So decrease in GDP, decrease in revenue, and decrease in tax revenue. Sounds great. Let's also mention that it probably won't hurt the big guys, but the people that just dabble in investments? They're going to stop. Their brokers? Out of a job. There are better ways to raise money than this tax.

Bump for Dala, per request.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

How many private businesses have you interacted with that are funded by public funds and must adhere for public procurement procedures? There's a reason its slow and inefficient, it's called tax payer accountability. It adds many layers of bureaucracy to every publicly funded and operated entity. So when people say that the private sector could do it better and faster, they really have no ****ing clue what they're talking about. FYI.

I didn't mention accountability at all. I said it was due to cost, and public procurement issues aka bureaucracy. You're whining using generalities and platitudes as grounds for complaints. I'm saying you don't understand the system. But if your going to complain because assholes exist, well I don't know what to tell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of us didn't read your original post very closely. (Hint: It wasn't me.)

 

[BabyPeterzz]

One of us didn't read your original post very closely. (Hint: It wasn't me.)

Lol, nice catch. My bad, I was posting at the game and not paying close enough attention. But it still doesn't change the fact that everything you're complaining about has do do with individual laziness and/or systematic bureaucracy. If you want to argue that grocery store clerks work harder than government employees go for it, but you would be incorrect.

Edit: Aaaaand accountability does come into play with the examples you gave. Grocery stores can open more lanes for you because they can afford to do so with greater amount of employees and resources. When you're at the DMV or the post office you have to wait because most of the time those people are doing the job of 3 or more people. Tax payer accountability limits resources due to the cost of keeping expenditures as low as possible due to the constant policing of waste aka bureaucracy.

What's funny is it's the lack of trust in government is what cause most of the waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy. Pick your poison.

 

[Nate505]

Can I ask why Americans are so incredibly committed to the constitution? Probably a difficult question. I mean i get that it's the founding document of your country, but it's over 200 years old. I'm not saying ya'll should scrap the whole thing, but why are people so outraged when anyone suggests doing something that might be even slightly 'unconstitutional'?

The most basic answer is that the Constitution is the rule book that the government plays by, and most people don't like it when the rules are broken or someone wants to break them.

The part of the Constitution that most people care about (at least IMO) is the Bill of Rights, and that is there so that the powers that be don't try to usurp our rights, most of which the public still holds to be important. Now many laws have been passed to hurt those rights (such as the war on drugs completely obliterating the 4th Amendment), but we still like the idea of them anyway.

 

[Red]

In any event you will agree that the country has been in a steady decline for the past years, the national debt has been increasing, more social wars as you say, etc... I think people are fed up with this and in my opinion their approach is "to hell with everything, we might as well go all the way and fast towards wherever we're heading to". Just trying to theorize about why such an outrageous character has become so popular.

There is always the option to secede from the Union and become the great nation that Utah was once again

I think to understand the emergence of "the Trump phenomenon" requires we understand ourselves better then I think we do. Extremely difficult, when you are right in the middle of the historical current, to extricate yourself from it and try to see clearly what is actually happening and why. "To see yourself as others see you." Well, we've all heard that saying before. Not easy to do, as an individual, or as a nation.

One thing that I think has widened the division within the cultural and political wars is the emergence of the 24 hour cable news cycle. MSNBC and Fox give the respective sides an echo chamber for their beliefs. I think Fox made it clear from the start that they would help drive things like the birther movement, and the attitude expressed here by folks like CJ. I used to watch Keith Olbberman before MSNBC yanked him. I thought he was a brilliant guy and I enjoyed watching his stream of consciousness rants, but I also recognized he was willing to demonize the right, and it's that demonization by each side of the spectrum for the other end of the spectrum that helped ratchet up an attitude that ensured that if "politics is the art of compromise", we'll then, we can forget about it. Fox News demonized Obama and the left; MSNBC demonized the political right. Not putting all the blame on those biased outlets for the level of anger and anxiety in America, but they are a relatively new element in our social fabric that was not present when Americans understood the other side was "the loyal opposition", not the evil empire trying to destroy America.

During a time of war, it is not uncommon for a government to practice psychological warfare with messages that demonize the enemy. Americans should not be in a state of war with other Americans. Yet, esp. where the cable news outlets are concerned, they adopted psychological warfare against the end of the political/social/cultural spectrum that is opposite their own. If left and right actually demonize each other, then we create a situation where we are truly at war with one another. And the loyal opposition transforms into "the enemy". I do quite honestly believe the cable outlets have, in effect, acted in an extremely irresponsible manner by demonizing their political opponents. Deliberately turning American against American, as far as I am concerned, is a form of treason, because in so doing one undermines the sense of "we are one nation, one people" that we need to regain. Creating the psychological preconditions for civil war among Americans is wrong. Period. And through the cable outlets, and emotion driven social media "wars", we're weakening our ability to be one nation, one people, and our ability to be tolerant of our very diversity.

 

[Red]

As a historical matter, I wonder how many populist demagogue's have actually turned out to be good leaders, who delivered on their promises, as opposed to using populist demagoguery as a means to manipulate the masses as a path to achieve and consolidate power.

Good question. One would think that seldom happens. After all, the demagogue is the ultimate cynic where human nature is concerned. But then, so are the marketers that deluge our airwaves with ads designed to part us from our $$. But the demagogue, if he's using people to gain power, does not seem like the personality type who says to himself "I'm cynical and manipulative of people's emotions, but once in power I will have the opportunity to heal this nation and help us all understand we are all brothers and sisters."

I don't think too many people understand the psychology prevalent in the current cultural landscape, while the demagogue always understands that very thing, and knows how to play on fear, anxiety in the face of great social/cultural change, anger, and a focus on scapegoats. Mexicans. Muslim Americans. These are being set up as scapegoats, a classic strategy for the demagogue. The demagogue is a master at manipulating negative emotions into an army of followers. The demagogue instinctively knows what angry people want to hear, and uses their anger to his advantage. His followers do not see, or do not care, or both, that this is the ultimate in cynical attitudes towards one's fellow man. And, sadly, too many Americans either do not see and understand, or are actually fine with it. Fine with it if they themselves are racist, hateful bigots, etc., or fine with it because anger at the establishment somehow suits them more then not repeating the mistakes of history by handing power to a hate monger. So angry they will hand power to such a man and take their chances.

Not saying once he were elected, out come the internment camps and into those camps go left leaning Americans, along with every Muslim American. I'm not extremely concerned that Trump is actually evil, but when I make an effort to extricate myself from my own time and place, because that is what a study of history helps one do, then I see this really, really scary thing happening in 2016 America. We should not think for one second that the German people, who were so inspired and made to feel so good about themselves, about the "Volk", by the emotionally powerful presentations of Hitler,saw what was coming if they bought into it all. Certainly the Jews saw it coming, but for most people it is extremely difficult to stand outside one's own time, place, and culture, in order to see more clearly the parallels in history that may help one understand better the forces at work in your own time and place.

All politicians will cynically seize on fear to some degree for votes. It's not the sole domain of the demagogue. But Trump seems to have crossed over into a very dangerous territory. You don't stir up people's anger and fear, like he does, and then, once elected, tell that same people. "Hey, chill out, I was only kidding, we're all good Americans, let's all shake hands".

 

[Deleted member 848]

Bump for Dala, per request.

His extrapolations are based on an article that the author wrote-- he says its 'peer-reviewed', but it isn't.

Here's an article on the Times from the former economic adviser of VP Joe Biden:

WASHINGTON — LIKE it or not, the campaign season is upon us, and that almost certainly means somebody is going to try to buy your vote with a tax cut — even though average federal tax rates are already low in historical terms, our tax code remains tilted in favor of the wealthy, and our children, neighborhoods and infrastructure desperately need public investment.

What would really be interesting is if a candidate proposed the opposite: a new way to raise more revenues.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has done just that, by proposing a financial transaction tax: a small excise tax, typically a few hundredths of a percent, on trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other securities. An itty-bitty, one-basis-point transaction tax (a basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point, or 0.01 percent) would raise $185 billion over 10 years, according to new estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That would be enough to finance an ambitious expansion of prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds and restore funding of college assistance for low-income students.

What’s more, a financial transaction tax could significantly reduce the amount of high-frequency trading. This trading, most of it automated, is used to make windfall profits through arbitrage (taking advantage of small differences in price) in milliseconds. It does nothing to help ordinary investors and can destabilize financial markets.

Before addressing potential objections, consider this: A one-basis-point tax on $1,000 worth of stock would cost the stock trader a dime. A $100,000 trade would generate a tax of only $10.


How, then, does such a tiny tax raise so many billions? Because the base to which it’s applied — the mass of securities traded in United States financial markets — is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

One concern is that if we tax trades, we’ll get fewer trades, and less liquidity. History suggests that trading volume would in fact decline somewhat as transactions became more expensive. But is this a bad thing?

Liquidity is critical in financial markets, both for efficient “price discovery” — quickly discerning the market value of assets — and for the basic market operation of matching buyers and sellers. If a market gets too “thin,” say because increased transaction costs lead to a decline in trading volumes, price discovery gets harder.

There is, however, such a thing as too much liquidity, particularly when high-frequency traders get into the mix. Instead of improving efficiency, these traders often insert themselves between normal-speed traders, a practice known as “front-running.”

With a transaction tax in place, the sheer magnitude of high-frequency trades and the tiny margins they pursue will become unprofitable.

The historical evidence on whether reduced liquidity resulting from a transaction tax raises or lowers market volatility — sharp, distortionary movements in prices — is inconclusive. But high-frequency trading has recently become a much larger share of the market, now over 50 percent in some of our busiest exchanges. So while we should proceed with caution, introducing such a tax is likely to reduce excessive liquidity.

Would a transaction tax encourage trading to move offshore, in an era of electronically mobile capital? As the Congressional Budget Office points out, with adequate international coordination, offshore transactions by United States taxpayers could still be captured by a transaction tax, just as an out-of-state Internet purchase can face the sales tax that prevails in the purchaser’s state.

Still, a transaction tax would be more effective if it were adopted worldwide. Fortunately, we may be headed in that direction. Eleven countries of the European Union agreed to implement such a tax, in 2013, though pressure from opponents caused the introduction to be postponed until next year.

It’s also worth noting that transaction taxes of one type or another have long been in place in countries with thriving financial markets, including Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore and many others. So it simply can’t be the case that they’re unworkable.

As you’d expect, the financial transaction tax would be highly progressive, another selling point given our era of high and growing inequality. According to the Tax Policy Center, 75 percent of the liability from the tax would fall on the top fifth of taxpayers, and 40 percent on the top 1 percent. The tax would also fall more on high-volume traders than on long-term investors, of course. And the proceeds could be used for investments to reduce inequality and increase mobility.

There are still many issues to consider. Should the tax fall on buyers, sellers or both? Should government debt be exempt? How, for the purpose of the tax, do you value complex derivatives? One insight from the tax in other countries: Whatever you exempt quickly becomes the security that everyone is trading. So if we want to keep the rate low, we’ll need to keep the base broad.

I’d recommend a three- to five-basis-points financial transaction tax, preferably introduced in tandem with the European Union’s. (I view Senator Sanders’s proposal for a 50-basis-point tax on stock trades to be too high.) By phasing the tax in by one basis point per year, we can monitor its impact on liquidity and volatility. To opponents, I say: If our financial markets will crumble in the face of a one-basis-point financial transaction tax, then we’ve got much bigger problems than I thought.

A financial transaction tax is a smart, fair way to raise urgently needed revenues while reducing unnecessary trading that makes our markets more volatile. Let’s give it a shot.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/...a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?referer=

 

[Deleted member 848]

Also while some economists in Europe like Sweden have spoken out against it, the U.K. and Hong Kong currently have this set-up and there's really no dramatic worsening of trading fluidity.