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?
Vote for Bernie today
- Thread starter Getting Traded
- Start date
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.