The Next President is...

[M2]

15 hours ago, dream big said:

While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump...

Sorry, but it's not all "old people" who are clinging to Trump.  Look closely at this photo from earlier this month, and the vast majority of participants are middle aged or younger...

[Guardian]

Separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution or bill of rights but we sure do waste a lot of time making sure there isn’t any religion found in the government halls.

[kaputt]

24 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

If he was a Marxist, he wouldn’t be talking making a wage.

The entire paragraph I quoted sounds like a college sophomore talking to his friends in the dining hall that just discovered Marx’s theories on exploitation. 

[Lord Ratner]

35 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

 

This is one of the most mind-boggling arguments that I see all the time from the left.

 

Wealth is created. It is not static. Yes, the basis for wealth and the monetary systems we use to support it are fundamentally systems of exchanging labor. But that labor value is not fixed. When you look at the billionaire class, overwhelmingly they are represented by people who created fundamental changes in how labor functions, freeing up incredible amounts of labor to be dedicated into other pursuits. That is the creation of additional labor/wealth. They did not take it from anybody, and to say so is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

 

Now, if you want to get into a conversation specifically about wealth transfer in the banking and finance system, I think there is a very strong argument there for criticizing the manipulation of financial instruments to move wealth from one person to another. But that's not where most of the billionaires come from, and it's not the argument being made by the most visible politicians/activists on the left.

 

Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

[Lord Ratner]

32 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution or bill of rights but we sure do waste a lot of time making sure there isn’t any religion found in the government halls.

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights.

 

I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

[Guardian]

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights.
 
I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

Two things.

First saying “basis” means you admit that the separation of church and state aren’t anywhere in the bill of rights or constitution but that the basis as you claim (others may think different) is in there. It also says that you imply that it it isn’t explicitly in either document means it’s reading is subjective. And that makes it subjective to the reader what the basis is or isn’t. the constitution and bill of rights were painstakingly written so as that there wouldn’t be ambiguity in what was being said.

Second. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This in no way means that church has no place in state or state has no place in church. Just that the state won’t make an official religion or a law respecting such because of the context of how America was founded. Church was very much a part of state but it wasn’t an official or sanctioned part. Where most of the founding fathers roots were found in Europe where there were state laws and sanctioned religions.

So to clarify my point. Church and state weren’t ever designed in the bill of rights or constitution to be separate at all costs. But that the free exercise of religion (or lack there of) should be allowed. Not forced any particular religion on individuals.

Church and state comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury baptists. Which is an interesting read and doesn’t even then necessarily back up the separation of church and state as we know it today.

[hockeydork]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

Devils Advocate:

There is a town with 4 competing steel mills. Most all of the town is employed by one of the steel mills with wages that are competitive and fair due to competition. Steel mill A innovates, finds a way to manufacture steel at 25% cheaper rate. The three other mills can't compete, and steel mill A eventually buys them out. Yay, innovation, steel is now made at a cheaper price. The world is better off, right?

But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve. 

Bezos made his fortune fair and square, I agree with you, and if you over regulate you take away the incentive for innovation. But the idea that people with large fortunes don't end up with large influence over the economy and labor rates doesn't hold water.  If Bezos and Walmart put every mom and pop shop out of business, how can you say they don't have influence setting the labor rate? Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

 

 

 

[Guardian]

Not sure what your point is or what you are advocating for or against

[SurelySerious]

Devils Advocate:
…
But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve…. 

If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.

The suppression and decline of organized labor in the United States is a discussion/thread all its own. 

[hockeydork]

29 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.

I was commenting on Negatorys inheritance post, and it's more just a food for thought post, not a decree that I have the answer. I personally will benefit from conservative fiscal policy and lax inheritance laws, and pure socialism does not work, nor will it ever work. It just makes people lazy. 

And it was just an analogy, not really talking about the actual steel mills from 100 years ago (what a throw back to 7th grade social studies tho).

You cannot tax people to death and strip them of inheritance, that stifles innovation and motivation which hurts everybody. Why keep working if the government is just going to take it away? But you also cannot allow wealth to be increasingly consolidated among fewer and fewer people/corporations with NO limit, there has to be some sort of percentage cap or limiting instrument to encourage people to spend what they have after a certain point (exactly where that point is I have no idea). Because wealth is more than just a pile of money used to buy your kid a bicycle, it is influence and any smart person will almost always chose to use that influence.... to make more wealth…for the good of the whole or not...and the cycle goes on. 

All 4 people start the game of monopoly with the same 500 or whatever, but the principle of the game is as you own more crap, it gets easier and easier to TAKE everyone else’s crap. 1 person ends up on top, the other three homeless with nothing. Is that right? Idk. Sucks if you're not the one on top. I mean the game was fair, was it not? What if one person starts the game with 10,000, and the others 500? Will that 10,000 dollar player be content with their 10,000, or will they try and take the other 500 from everybody else? 

 

 

 

 

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

I was commenting on Negatorys inheritance post, and it's more just a food for thought post, not a decree that I have the answer. I personally will benefit from conservative fiscal policy and lax inheritance laws, and pure socialism does not work, nor will it ever work. It just makes people lazy. 

And it was just an analogy, not really talking about the actual steel mills from 100 years ago (what a throw back to 7th grade social studies tho).

You cannot tax people to death and strip them of inheritance, that stifles innovation and motivation which hurts everybody. Why keep working if the government is just going to take it away? But you also cannot allow wealth to be increasingly consolidated among fewer and fewer people/corporations with NO limit, there has to be some sort of percentage cap or limiting instrument to encourage people to spend what they have after a certain point (exactly where that point is I have no idea). Because wealth is more than just a pile of money used to buy your kid a bicycle, it is influence and any smart person will almost always chose to use that influence.... to make more wealth…for the good of the whole or not...and the cycle goes on. 

All 4 people start the game of monopoly with the same 500 or whatever, but the principle of the game is as you own more crap, it gets easier and easier to TAKE everyone else’s crap. 1 person ends up on top, the other three homeless with nothing. Is that right? Idk. Sucks if you're not the one on top. I mean the game was fair, was it not? What if one person starts the game with 10,000, and the others 500? Will that 10,000 dollar player be content with their 10,000, or will they try and take the other 500 from everybody else? 

 

 

 

 

It’s almost as if the world isn’t black and white and economic policy, like everything else, exists on a spectrum. Huh. 🤷‍♂️ 

[hockeydork]

37 minutes ago, Prozac said:

It’s almost as if the world isn’t black and white and economic policy, like everything else, exists on a spectrum. Huh. 🤷‍♂️ 

Basically. I mean if you're so far left or right that anything the "other side" says is trash...you're probably part of the problem. 

[FLEA]

Our inheritence taxes were designed with a pretty clear purpose. The founding fathers were terrified of enough familial wealth being accumulated to establish a landed gentry re-subjugating the United States to the whims of an Aristocracy. This is effectively what the Rockefellers did with their oil boom towns. 

I hate aristocracy. So I will always support some sort of inheritance tax. 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Devils Advocate:

There is a town with 4 competing steel mills. Most all of the town is employed by one of the steel mills with wages that are competitive and fair due to competition. Steel mill A innovates, finds a way to manufacture steel at 25% cheaper rate. The three other mills can't compete, and steel mill A eventually buys them out. Yay, innovation, steel is now made at a cheaper price. The world is better off, right?

But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve. 

Bezos made his fortune fair and square, I agree with you, and if you over regulate you take away the incentive for innovation. But the idea that people with large fortunes don't end up with large influence over the economy and labor rates doesn't hold water.  If Bezos and Walmart put every mom and pop shop out of business, how can you say they don't have influence setting the labor rate? Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

 

 

 

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.

 

In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.

 

No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens.

 

I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.

[SurelySerious]

The suppression and decline of organized labor in the United States is a discussion/thread all its own. 

It is, although the labor organizations themselves in many cases precipitated their own downfalls because they lost sight of their objectives.

And things like the NRLB are a political mess.

[hockeydork]

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.

 

In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.

 

No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens.

Agreed dude, capitalism is the best we've got, no system is ever going to work perfectly, and not everybody gets to come in first, that's life. But look at you're argument "people would just move and find a new job". How many rust belt cities/coal towns keep voting people into office who "promise" to "bring our manufacturing and coal mining jobs back".  Why don't they just move to CA and work for Tesla, or NY and build wind turbines in Albany, or service solar panels in Nevada? Is it people don't want to leave, home is home?  Not a jab btw, but it seems a lot of times people don't want to move. 

[Guardian]

There is more money in the world than ever before. And also more millionaires and billionaires. Just because there are more doesn’t mean the the poor are staying poor or getting more poor by comparison. In fact they are making more too. And the average US earner is still one of the top of the entire world.

If capitalism is bad, Or the way the US does taxes on inheritance is so bad, then why are we one of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world? So the things that got us here are bad?

[hockeydork]

18 minutes ago, Guardian said:

There is more money in the world than ever before. And also more millionaires and billionaires. Just because there are more doesn’t mean the the poor are staying poor or getting more poor by comparison. In fact they are making more too. And the average US earner is still one of the top of the entire world.

If capitalism is bad, Or the way the US does taxes on inheritance is so bad, then why are we one of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world? So the things that got us here are bad?

Very true. If 5 percent of "the pie" today is twice as much as it was 20 years ago because the pie has doubled in size, than I would agree the system is working. Also, the quality of life of a middle class person today is arguably better than the ultra wealthy of 150 years ago. They didn't have TV, AC, the automobile etc. 

[brickhistory]

Since the 2004 election, with the discontent brewing before that, a very large swath of the GOP, and, I imagine some centrist Democrats/Independents, have been unhappy with the sudden and ever-increasing growth in the size and scope of the federal government.

The 2010 Tea Party movement was a direct result of that.  The GOP did it's best to ignore/patronize/hijack the movement because it represented a threat to the good deal enjoyed by the Establishment class.  Those "ugly" townhalls upset their merlot glasses.

So what did the GOP do?  It ran Democrat-lites like McCain in 2008 and Mr. Great Hair but can't fight Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, government growth and overreach marched on.

Come 2016 and the slate was overly full of the same Establishment candidates.  Trump, as a disruptor, beat 16 of those types of candidates.  And the GOP did it's best to tamp him and his voters down.  Obamacare still exists due to McCain, Murkowski, et al.  Despite the very real and clear signals that the peasants were revolting.  They ran during that election on specifically repealing Obamacare and when it came time, they supported it to stick it to Trump.  Some profiles in courage fellas...  With numerous other similar items unpassed or unrepealed because it would've been a win for Trump.

Came 2020 and some unprecedented events and Trump still scored more votes than any other GOP candidate ever.  I will leave off the voting shenanigans for another time.  I

So I'm not a fan of Trump the man, but of the idea he represents - mainly, a very large percentage of Americans are aghast at the size of the federal government, at the unbelievable overreach that is being tolerated and encouraged, and at the intentional fraying of the American societal fabric by that same Establishment group - is something that people want to rally around.

Me?  I want Trump to run again.  To disrupt the same ol' GOP that they'll try to run again and get the serfs back on the turnip fields.  And to absolutely piss people off to see that they aren't always the ones running the show for us peons.  This inconvenient truth was demonstrated once and the amount of caterwailing and pushback by both parties was incredible.   I look forward to it again.

Or burn it all down.

Barring Trump, then DeSantis.

[Negatory]

8 hours ago, kaputt said:

The entire paragraph I quoted sounds like a college sophomore talking to his friends in the dining hall that just discovered Marx’s theories on exploitation. 

If you can’t address the content of the argument, you’re not really contributing.

[Negatory]

5 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

I agree with everything you said except for this. Americans don’t actually have the excess money to make market choices based on ethics or feelings - they overwhelmingly must go with the cheapest option no matter what if they want a chance at “the American dream.” You can’t blame people that don’t have excess resources for not spending them.

 

[hockeydork]

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I agree with everything you said except for this. Americans don’t actually have the excess money to make market choices based on ethics or feelings - they overwhelmingly must go with the cheapest option no matter what if they want a chance at “the American dream.” You can’t blame people that don’t have excess resources for not spending them.

 

Do they tho? How many middle classers chose to be cheapos? Example, and this is a true story and if I am lying may the fighter gods banish me from having any shot at a pointy. During the 2016 run-up, I had two coworkers, adamant Trump supporters, Bernie and Hillary are socialists, going to destroy the country blah blah. That's FINE. BOTH of them needed tires for their cars, I was like "buy these Coopers they're made in the USA I got them for my car at a fair price". What do they BOTH do? "Give me the cheapest Shengzin whatever tire from Sears". Where were they made? China. Some people do it to themselves. Some people really don't have a choice and are barely scraping by, and yes those people I empathize for and the system needs to do better for them, but a lot of people do it to themselves. I don't care who you are, Walmart greeter, submarine engineer or a baseops F-35 super hero. If you complain we don't make anything here and manufacturing is in the gutter but than actively select to purchase the cheapest foreign stuff when there exists a domestically produced alternative? F*ck you. Rant off. 

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

It is, although the labor organizations themselves in many cases precipitated their own downfalls because they lost sight of their objectives.

And things like the NRLB are a political mess.

Agreed. Organizations like the Teamsters have likely contributed to the most anti-labor environment this country has ever seen. Politicians of all stripes are also more anti-labor than ever. 

[kaputt]

44 minutes ago, Negatory said:

If you can’t address the content of the argument, you’re not really contributing.

Your elitism is palpable dude.

Sorry not sorry I called a spade a spade.