Opinions re: ANTIFA?

[PanTheFaun]

I'm not debating anymore as far as I know but I will spectate. c:

 

[Xzi]

Debt a lot of it was caused by Obama's spending much more then what bush did.

But they do have welfare programs.

Much of Obama's spending was a necessity to pull us out of the economic recession GWB put us in. Republicans were always supposed to be the party of "fiscal responsibility," but we're in the same deep hole regardless of whataboutism.

 

[Attacker3]

Much of Obama's spending was a necessity to pull us out of the economic recession GWB put us in.

Funny how the government has to fix the issues that government makes. Most of the issues in the world wouldn't exist if the government didn't meddle.

 

[kumikochan]

Obama is a capitalist idiot. To do a 5 minute speech at the university in ghent he asked 600 000 Euro wich is almost 700 000 dollar wich they thankfully declined afterwards

 

[Xzi]

But how do you decide that? Is through the marxist way of "if it takes longer to make it's worth more"? Because that's really dumb, and we can get into a debate about that too.

In 2018 we obviously have more accurate ways of tracking value produced than that. McDonald's knows how much profit they're making per sandwich. If I had to guess, an average employee there on an average day isn't earning even 1% of the profits they've made for the company. Somewhere in the 5-10% range would be far more fair, and then the rest of us wouldn't have to pay our taxes toward the food stamps that fast food employees are forced to use to make end's meet.

But what does a minimum wage mean? The fact that many people are surviving with their family working shows that they are in fact living. Again, we get into an issue of how to define how much labour is worth.

Labor is always worth more than what a company/corporation is going to want to pay for it. CEO profits have never been higher.

Funny how the government has to fix the issues that government makes. Most of the issues in the world wouldn't exist if the government didn't meddle.

GWB's spending was out of control, but government didn't crash the economy. It was a lack of regulation that allowed the housing and banking industries to crash the economy. If government didn't exist then all the dominoes would've fell and we never would've recovered from the '08 crash.

 

[SG854]

We're on the brink of another worldwide economic crash. Debts have never been higher. We haven't been stockpiling a surplus or paying down debts at all, so I don't know how well America is going to recover afterward.


They don't need welfare programs because they do smart stuff like taxing gasoline at 70% and put that money to use in the green energy sector. Or paying their workers the wages they actually deserve. If we want to become more prosperous like those countries, it's a lot more complicated then ending welfare and facetiously saying "good luck" to those who were dependent on it.

When you look a figures from 2016 the richest 400 have lost $19 billion dollars. If they rigged the system then they are doing a horrible job at it.

51% of Americans will be in the top 10% at some point in their lives for at least one year. This shows great income mobility. So static charts between upper class and bottom tells you nothing of the individuals in those brackets. Most people in the top and bottom aren't the same people 5 years ago

Poor in America is however statisticians want it to mean. What we call poor in America is what they call middle class in Mexico. Most poor in America have smart phones.

This is how United States compares to the world.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/

 

[Attacker3]

If I had to guess, an average employee there on an average day isn't earning even 1% of the profits they've made for the company. Somewhere in the 5-10% range would be far more fair, and then the rest of us wouldn't have to pay our taxes toward the food stamps that fast food employees

But if you raise wages based on profit, then the increase in wages will drive profit down, and then it will drive wages down with it :c

 

[Xzi]

But if you raise wages based on profit, then the increase in wages will drive profit down, and then it will drive wages down with it :c

You lost me. If you increase wages, people have more money to spend, and thus can provide more profit to companies. It doesn't add to inflation because that was money that was going to exist anyway, it just would've gone to the CEO instead of the workers.

 

[SG854]

Much of Obama's spending was a necessity to pull us out of the economic recession GWB put us in. Republicans were always supposed to be the party of "fiscal responsibility," but we're in the same deep hole regardless of whataboutism.

The recession was caused by government intervention in the housing market. Forcing loans to people that couldn't afford it because they were being sued from apparently discriminating against blacks which isn't even true. Whites where being rejected more from loans then Asians. And most Blacks were authorized for loans.

 

[Xzi]

The recession was caused by government intervention in the housing market. Forcing loans to people that couldn't afford it because they were being sued from apparently discriminating against blacks which isn't even true. Whites where being rejected more from loans then Asians. And most Blacks were authorized for loans.

People were taking loans they couldn't afford, yes, but banks were also extremely deceptive about those loans and made people believe they could afford them. Then Wall Street couldn't help but gamble with the junk bonds that these loans were rolled into despite knowing that there was no real value backing them. If it means a big short-term spike in profits, the corporate world is always willing to crash the economy because they believe they have enough capital in reserve to insulate themselves.

 

[Attacker3]

If government didn't exist then all the dominoes would've fell and we never would've recovered from the '08 crash.

Well that's wrong. The banks would have failed and new ones that didn't take risks would take their places. Just giving money to companies doesn't fix and issue. It's like giving a treat to a dog who just pissed on the carpet, telling it "Ok I'll give you this if you promise not to do it again"

CEO profits have never been higher.

If we take Walmart's CEO's salary of 21 million and divide that by 30 thousand and it looks like if he didn't get paid that much he would be able to help 733.3 of his 1.5 million employees be $8000 over the poverty line.

You lost me. If you increase wages, people have more money to spend, and thus can provide more profit to companies. It doesn't add to inflation because that was money that was going to exist anyway, it just would've gone to the CEO instead of the workers.

Inflation would take root then. You'd have Cost-Push, caused by the increased cost of production, as well as Demand-Pull inflation, caused by the increased demand of goods by the people who have more money to blow.

banks were also extremely deceptive about those loans and made people believe they could afford them.

You're correct but you missed the point. The government was doing extensive investigations on them to see if they were discriminating against minorities. In fear that they would be hit by a huge lawsuit, they decided to give out loans to literally everyone just so they could say "hey look government you don't have to sue us, look at us giving loans to all races!".

 

[SG854]

People were taking loans they couldn't afford, yes, but banks were also extremely deceptive about those loans and made people believe they could afford them. Then Wall Street couldn't help but gamble with the junk bonds that these loans were rolled into despite knowing that there was no real value backing them. If it means a big short-term spike in profits, the corporate world is always willing to crash the economy because they believe they have enough capital in reserve to insulate themselves.

It was not caused by the Free Market it was caused by government intervention. If government never intervened in the first place this would've never happened.
Free market does not take risky loans because they wouldn't survive long. It was government backing them that they were able to do this. And law suits meant they were forced to make these loans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

But how do you decide that? Is through the marxist way of "if it takes longer to make it's worth more"? Because that's really dumb, and we can get into a debate about that too.


But what does a minimum wage mean? The fact that many people are surviving with their family working shows that they are in fact living. Again, we get into an issue of how to define how much labour is worth.

The average medium family income for a minimum wage worker is more then $44,000 a year, way more then a minimum wage worker can make alone. 42% of minimum wage workers live with a parent or some other relative. Only 15% support themselves and a dependent. 3.6 million people earning no more then minimum wage in 2012, over half were from 16-24 years old. 64% worked part time. Only 3% of minimum wage workers are over 24 years old. Most minimum wage workers are not supporting a family of 4. And most likely to be teenagers and a young adult.

 

[Attacker3]

Free market does not take risky loans because they wouldn't survive long.

Well, some bank would give out risky loans but it would get to a point where they lose it all because they gave them to the wrong people. Then they would fail, as they should. Failing businesses are not a bad thing, it allows new ones to rise up from their ashes and perhaps do something better.

 

[SG854]

Well, some bank would give out risky loans but it would get to a point where they lose it all because they gave them to the wrong people. Then they would fail, as they should. Failing businesses are not a bad thing, it allows new ones to rise up from their ashes and perhaps do something better.

Loan Banking use to be one of the safest investments you could make in history. The traditional way is a 20% down payment and fixed interest rate. It wasn't until government intervention that the problem was caused.

 

[Attacker3]

Loan Banking use to be one of the safest investments you could make in history. The traditional way a 20% down payment and fixed interest rate. It wasn't until government intervention that the problem was caused.

It's true. I also find it charming how basic of an investment it is. It's probably safer to go to a friend doing this nowadays than a bank lol

 

[J-Machine]

Obama is a capitalist idiot. To do a 5 minute speech at the university in ghent he asked 600 000 Euro wich is almost 700 000 dollar wich they thankfully declined afterwards

he's that expensive cause he's a high profile person who needs security everywhere he goes

 

[SG854]

It's true. I also find it charming how basic of an investment it is. It's probably safer to go to a friend doing this nowadays than a bank lol

A lot of problems you can trace back to government intervention.

Living in San Francisco is so expensive because people are paying more for land then the actual house due to land restriction laws. Rising population and unable to build houses equals more money to pay for homes, supply and demand. If we get government out and allow people to build more houses, housing prices will fall.

Open Space Laws, Zoning Laws, Height Restrictions, Minimum Lot Size Laws, Historical Preservation Laws, Building Permit Limits, Farmland Preservation Laws. All are factors.

Dallas and Houston has some of the cheapest housing prices and they have no laws restricting land. The same house in San Francisco built in Houston would be a lot cheaper.

This was the beginning of the cause of the 2008 recession. People becoming desperate then government intervening in the housing market to increase home ownership to fix a government created problem.

 

[Xzi]

Well that's wrong. The banks would have failed and new ones that didn't take risks would take their places. Just giving money to companies doesn't fix and issue. It's like giving a treat to a dog who just pissed on the carpet, telling it "Ok I'll give you this if you promise not to do it again"

If it was just the couple of banks at stake I'd agree with you, but as I said before, they were the first couple dominoes. If we had let them fall it was potentially all banking at risk and thus a total worldwide economic collapse at risk. In that sense they were literally "too big to fail." I agree it's a failure on our part for letting them get that big and influential in the first place.

If we take Walmart's CEO's salary of 21 million and divide that by 30 thousand and it looks like if he didn't get paid that much he would be able to help 733.3 of his 1.5 million employees be $8000 over the poverty line.

I suggested taking from total profit though, not directly from the CEO's pocket. That's where it would go otherwise.

Inflation would take root then. You'd have Cost-Push, caused by the increased cost of production, as well as Demand-Pull inflation, caused by the increased demand of goods by the people who have more money to blow.

That sounds largely like a boost to the economy. Maybe slightly pricier goods, but everybody can still buy a lot more, and thus we have to produce more.

You're correct but you missed the point. The government was doing extensive investigations on them to see if they were discriminating against minorities. In fear that they would be hit by a huge lawsuit, they decided to give out loans to literally everyone just so they could say "hey look government you don't have to sue us, look at us giving loans to all races!".

Government did not tell them to issue predatory loans, that was of their own volition. Not that GWB's governmental policies helped the situation, I'm sure, but as usual it was more about the corporate world trying to find a way to skirt the rules placed on them.

It was not caused by the Free Market it was caused by government intervention. If government never intervened in the first place this would've never happened.
Free market does not take risky loans because they wouldn't survive long. It was government backing them that they were able to do this. And law suits meant they were forced to make these loans.

Government had to put regulations in place to keep these industries from doing the exact same thing again right afterward. Trump has already repealed some of those regulations. Of course they'll take risks if it means potentially larger profits, the resulting fines/payouts are never large enough to be a deterrent.

 

[kumikochan]

he's that expensive cause he's a high profile person who needs security everywhere he goes

There are tons of other high profile leaders who don't do that or ask that amount of money.

 

[Attacker3]

If it was just the couple of banks at stake I'd agree with you, but as I said before, they were the first couple dominoes. If we had let them fall it was potentially all banking at risk and thus a total worldwide economic collapse at risk.

But it wasn't all of them, and an economic collapse wouldn't be as bad as you think. Catastrophic, yes, but not apocalyptic. We might see a huge recession even, but after that we'd see a fucking huge economic boom as everything returns to normal. The thing is, you can't coddle the economy, it will sort itself out. The "invisible hand" is actually just the wants and needs of the consumer, and those wants and needs will set the economy straight.

That sounds largely like a boost to the economy. Maybe slightly pricier goods, but everybody can still buy a lot more, and thus we have to produce more.

You heavily misunderstand supply and demand economics. There's a reason that Demand-Pull inflation happens, and it's because companies cannot keep up with the increased demand with their supply. Doing that would probably require up to a decade of pre-planning, and that's just not gonna work out. You can't just introduce more money into the customer's hands and not also increase the amount of goods the business have. They're gonna raise prices to make sure that they don't ever run out of goods.

I'll talk to you later, some thing just came up. It's always fun debating with you Xzi.