Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

[Xzi]

That's a whole can of worms in itself, but I cannot argue that tonight. Have a good sleep, and go research the cost-push and demand-pull inflation for me, ok champ?

I know what supply and demand is. The point I was making is that corporations would gladly crash the economy if it means enough short-term profits in the interim to insulate themselves from any impending recession. That's likely what's happening right now with the tax cuts followed by tariffs.

 

[Deleted User]

They dodge as much as possible, but most still end up paying something. Just nowhere close to the percentage that the middle and lower classes have to pay. Obviously there are those corporations who do pay their fair share out of a sense of duty to the nation, but I'd likely count them few.

I genuinely don't understand this method of thinking. At this point pretty much all academic papers have concluded that lower taxes results in higher GDP.

SOURCES:

Spoiler

Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012).

Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011).

Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012).

I could grab ten more sources right now.

 

[KingVamp]

I like to known which country, if ever, is 100% capitalist.

1. And we haven't been able to do this yet, why? Oh right, they're incompetent. We've spent decades trying to make "better" regulations. If it's so easy, then why don't the guys in charge just do it?
2. Regulations are generally a barrier of entry to new companies who want to try and come into the fray. Corporations can foot the costs for regulations, but a new person can't easily foot the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars it requires to get into something like the food industry, or even the automobile industry, places that desperately need competition.

1) Doesn't really help that there is a specific group that keep taking away regulations. That aside. It is not like every single company is breaking regulations and getting away with it. Not sure why the answer to poor regulations or some people breaking regulations is no regulations.
2) Yeah, I rather not risk things such as a higher chance of food poisoning or shady built cars just because entry might be harder.

 

[Xzi]

I genuinely don't understand this method of thinking. At this point pretty much all academic papers have concluded that lower taxes results in higher GDP.

Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way. Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.

 

[KingVamp]

Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way. Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these tax cuts also raised the deficit.

 

[Xzi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these tax cuts also raised the deficit.

The federal deficit is expected to hit one trillion by the end of the month.

https://thinkprogress.org/deficit-expected-one-trillion-dollars-two-years-earlier-37a00472e3c3/

And Trump transferred ten million out of FEMA and into ICE ahead of hurricane Florence, oof:

https://www.axios.com/trump-transfe...ce--c6023a2f-5778-4c6d-992e-3f6da13bce25.html

I guess so they can afford to triple the size of the detention camp for migrant children:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...980c02-b5ee-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

 

[Deleted User]

Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way. Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.

How do you think they get richer?

They invest. They research products, which creates job opportunities. Then they manufacture, which creates more job opprtunites. Then other rich people realize that product could be made cheaper and better. So they invest and start the process over. This creates competition. As rich people look for a way to get a leg up on their competition, they pay people with the right skill sets more money due to prevent said people from getting hired by their competition.

 

[Xzi]

How do you think they get richer?

They don't pay their workers wages that keep pace with their productivity (or inflation), pretty simple.

 

[WeedZ]

How do you think they get richer?

They invest. They research products, which creates job opportunities. Then they manufacture, which creates more job opprtunites. Then other rich people realize that product could be made cheaper and better. So they invest and start the process over. This creates competition. As rich people look for a way to get a leg up on their competition, they pay people with the right skill sets more money due to prevent said people from getting hired by their competition.

Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.

 

[JeepX87]

I'm libertarian that is mostly fiscally conservative and socially liberal, pro-gun, smaller government and full liberties, also I'm consider myself as pro-military because some of my families serve in the military, however I'm not advice for war without absolutely good reason to defend our country. I do respect to people with different views, even liberal or conservative.

For some reasons, USA can't go full libertarian, so it is common to have mixed of conservative, liberal and libertarian.

I'm not into political debate unless it is related to disability rights, especially Deaf and DeafBlind.

 

[RaptorDMG]

I don't know and personally don't really care I'll vote for whoever has a manifesto that benefits me most

 

[Deleted User]

They don't pay their workers wages that keep pace with their productivity (or inflation), pretty simple.

Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.

Of course there aren't successful investors. Up until fairly recently the taxes have been absurdly high. Only people who got lucky early can succeed in today's business world. The reason you have Amazon's horrific work conditions and low wages is because there's nowhere else to go for their workers, and Jeff Bezos knows it.

If taxes stay low and business friendly, Amazon competition will soon pop up, and Jeff will have to get better company policy, lest his workers leave him.

 

[mattytrog]

Politics... Gawd...

Progressive new-age liberal here...



NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently I`m far-right. And politically incorrect. Apparently.

Someone had a right go at me the other day. Went past a branch of shop called "Lush" in the UK. Sells bath bombs and all that shyte women like.

All I said was it smells like a p00fs palace in here. That was it. WW3.

 

[SG854]

Could you link that article? Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it in print. Plus... 37% still isn't exactly a number to be proud of, especially for the guy that won by getting the second highest number of votes

Also, something you need to understand is that unemployment has been on a decline for years, so every year for the last few has been "an all time low." The issue with Trump's statistic is that the GROWTH RATE is far lower than previous years, which means that while unemployment is going down and jobs are being created, it's at a far lower point than it has been in 6 years, which will not be sustainable until something different is done about it

Unemployment rates are based on the percentage of people in the labor force not working. People that stop looking for work are not counted in the unemployment statistics. So unemployment rates can go down while while the number of people not working goes up. This includes people that stop looking for work and instead rely on government welfare programs.

Under Obama from 2009 to 2013 more than 3.7 million workers went on social security disability payments which was the fastest enrollment pace ever. This greatly affected unemployment rates. Along with other welfare programs under Obama.

If you want a better measurement of unemployment you would compare the amount of the adult population that is working (minus people in colleges, prison, military, hospitals, prison, etc). This avoids not counting people who had givin' up looking for work. An example in the first half of 2010 while unemployment was at 9.5 percent, the amount of working age adults that didn't work increased to what was the largest it has been in half a century. Under Obama the amount of working-age population that was not working was higher then in many yrs.

Also jobs created in an administration and economic growth are not always a result of policies of that administration because it ignores that the economy can recover on its own without government intervention. An example would be the stock market crash of 1929. Unemployment never reached the double digits during the 12 months after the crash. It was until government started to intervene and try to "fix" things that made things worse and unemployment went into the double digits in the 30's. We had a history of 150 yrs of the government doing nothing since this countries creation and the economy recovered every time. It was until the government decided to do something that we had the worse economic crisis in the 1930's that has never happened before. Its also a myth the Franklin Roosevelts policies saved America, his policies were actually shown to prolonged the Great depression.

Obama's policies to try to "fix" things from Taxes, Obama Care, and all the Anti Buisness policies he's made made the economy and employment rates worse.
While unemployment rates are low under Trump, I haven't checked if working age people employment rates have gone up, so I might be giving him a early unwarranted praise. I personally don't like some of the things Trump has done and I think if the public was better informed, especially on the Basics of Economics Trump, Hilary and Bernie Sanders wouldn't have been the presidential candidates.

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

Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.

This ignores that the majority of people at the bottom income brackets move up into higher brackets since there is great income mobility in the United States. The vast majority of people in the bottom income brackets have had their wages doubled within 15 yrs. This is due to gaining education and skill which increases wages. Its a myth the the rich are keeping the poor, poor, since income brackets are not permanent places. More likely young people are in the low income bracket. And older people gaining experience are in the higher brackets. Its also a myth that wages have stagnated, our living standards have gone up.

 

[SG854]

Saying you're in the middle because you see flaws on both sides, in and of itself is flawed, as even the direct middle line is flawed, too.

I tend to go a little right. I preferred Trump to Hillary this past election, I found the Republican Party utterly pathetic when they faced Obama, though to the latter himself, I didn't think was amazing either.

On hot divisive topics, I feel like abortion should be frowned upon, purely on the grounds of people should be provided easy access to contraceptives. Why in the ever living crispity crap should women have to deal with abortions when the way better option is to, yknow, prevent that at the outset. I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants. I love the ability to own a gun, but that's partially because I'm an incredibly weak, short female, and I value the defense it provides. I tend to lean a little right, but when push comes to shove, I grab a little from both political sides to form my opinions.

According to the cool site Costello linked, I'm:

View attachment 140265

Smidge right, and smidge libertarian.

To help you with the gun debate. People always compare the United States with a country that banned guns. But they never compare that same country with banned guns, before and after they banned the guns to see if getting rid of firearms improved the situation. And it actually doesn't.

England for example had crime rates rise after they banned guns. Before they banned guns Englands crime rates were declining as guns were becoming more available over the centuries. And gun control wasn't in response to a huge epidemic in England either. England was always a historically low gun crime place compared to New York, so comparing America with Europe countries is not a fair comparison that more gun availability leads to more murder. Since both places had guns widely available but crime in US was higher due to culture.

In 1911 New York had one of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., and England didn't ban guns until a decade after, but with less guns available New York still had higher murder rates then England which still had guns more widely available. This shows that comparing one country with banned guns to country with no bans doesn't mean much.

Guns restriction which became more strict over the years in 1900's England which lead to crime and murder rates rising. It got worse as the years went by. In 1954 there was about 10 armed robberies, by 1990's there is 100x as much. Gun restriction took guns away from law abiding citizens and left them defenseless, and criminals still gets access to them illegally. Its like trying to ban alcohol with prohibition. Its not going to make alcohol go away. Right now England passed the U.S in armed robbery and burglary rates. Banning guns did little to reduce it and instead increased it. Armed Murder rates have been going up in England, while murder rates went down in States in the U.S that made guns more widely available. 13% of burglaries in U.S. are when homeowners are in their house. While more than 40% in Britain, Canada and Netherlands, all with strict gun control, are with owners inside homes, criminals feel safer to rob.

Switzerland has lower gun murders then Germany even though they have higher gun owner ship. New Zealand, Israel, and Finland have high gun ownership and low murder rates. In U.S rural areas have higher gun ownership than urban yet have lower rates of murder. Whites have more gun owner ship then Blacks but Black murder rates are higher. Gun ownership doubled in the late 21 century but murder rates declined overall in U.S. Majority of murders is from Blacks and if you only count White gun murders, U.S. is on par with some of the safer countries, its Blacks and Hispanics that makes U.S. look dangerous in statistics. This combined with sentencing leniency, because apparently sending Blacks to jail is racism, made crime rates go up. They also made leniency in England too because apparently we need to feel empathy for criminals.

You can find this information from these books, Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcom. And the Thomas Sowell Reader.

 

[bi388]

Oh I love the hypocrisy.
So he is not allowed to insult someone, but it is alright for you and everyone else to insult him? Gotcha.

And it does matter bc the media is pushing the narrative of him being racist when the insult clearly is not.

"this is hypocrisy. you hold the president to a higher standard than 15 year olds on the internet?"

 

[WeedZ]

.
This ignores that the majority of people at the bottom income brackets move up into higher brackets since there is great income mobility in the United States. The vast majority of people in the bottom income brackets have had their wages doubled within 15 yrs. This is due to gaining education and skill which increases wages. Its a myth the the rich are keeping the poor, poor, since income brackets are not permanent places. More likely young people are in the low income bracket. And older people gaining experience are in the higher brackets. Its also a myth that wages have stagnated, our living standards have gone up.

That doesn't even make sense. If it's an expectation to move into higher income brackets as you get older, then why do the percentages of each class pretty much stay the same? Obviously a huge percentage of lower classes arent making it anywhere, otherwise we would see an increase in middle class families. And its not like the middle class is moving up to the upper class. The upper class is 30% less than the middle class.

What youre talking about is a myth. It's a fantasy of how things "should" work. Get better education, gain skills, move up. But now you can see what people have been complaining about. Education isn't available to everyone. Its expensive, and if you didn't come from a family that can afford it you have to play the scholarship lottery.

As far as gaining skills.. people at the bottom dont typically work trade jobs or in a corporate environment. There is no room for advancement in factories, warehouses, fast food, retail, etc. They are all entry level positions.

Factories have become so accustomed to recycling people that there are business called staffing agencies. Uneducated people go to these agencies who "rent" them out to other companies. Factories can basically put in an order for people like they would any other resource like metal, plastic, machinery.

These positions are temporary. When the factories are done with you they send you back and you wait to be rented out again. You dont get to negotiate wage as the agency does the negotiating, and not in your favor. remember, lowest bid wins the contract. And then they skim off the top of your hourly income.

 

[mattytrog]

That doesn't even make since. If it's an expectation to move into higher income brackets as you get older, then why do the percentages of each class pretty much stay the same? Obviously a huge percentage of lower classes arent making it anywhere, otherwise we would see an increase in middle class families. And its not like the middle class is moving up to the upper class. The upper class is 30% less than the middle class.

What youre talking about is a myth. It's a fantasy of how things "should" work. Get better education, gain skills, move up. But now you can see what people have been complaining about. Education isn't available to everyone. Its expensive, and if you didn't come from a family that can afford it you have to play the scholarship lottery.

As far as gaining skills.. people at the bottom dont typically work trade jobs or in a corporate environment. There is no room for advancement in factories, warehouses, fast food, retail, etc. They are all entry level positions.

Factories have become so accustomed to recycling people that there are business called staffing agencies. Uneducated people go to these agencies who "rent" them out to other companies. Factories can basically put in an order for people like they would any other resource like metal, plastic, machinery.

These positions are temporary. When the factories are done with you they send you back and you wait to be rented out again. You dont get to negotiate wage as the agency does the negotiating, and not in your favor. remember, lowest bid wins the contract. And then they skim off the top of your hourly income.

If I had my way, every agency world be blown sky high. They have decimated the labour market.

Zero hours contracts etc etc... Just bad.

Workers have allegedly lots of rights here in the UK.

But it's all a load of bollocks. The employers hold all the cards. You are at the mercy of these people.

 

[WeedZ]

If I had my way, every agency world be blown sky high. They have decimated the labour market.

Zero hours contracts etc etc... Just bad.

Workers have allegedly lots of rights here in the UK.

But it's all a load of bollocks. The employers hold all the cards. You are at the mercy of these people.

A lot of states here have free-to-work. Which is suppose to mean that you can take a job with no contract, terminate your employment whenever you want and have the freedom to change employers at will. But what this actually means is that your employer has the freedom to terminate you for no reason, put you on a probationary period to decide if they need you or not, and largely prohibits labor unions and worker rights.

 

[SG854]

I get what you're saying, but I've always seen this stance used as an example, I've never seen it actually put in practice. True centrism is trying to find compromise for both sides, but in practice and execution, in your example most people who are against the killing would end up being very center. A more proper example based on current events would be more like

"White men are responsible for the systematic oppression of all non-whites, so we're justified in hating them!"

vs

"Non-whites have the lowest IQs, Paul Joseph Watson told me so! They're also responsible for aggression in society, so we should hate them!"

which from people like me, both sides garner the response of "you're both dumb, shut the hell up already"

Theres probably an IQ difference between races. And obviously people born with low IQ, like those with Mental Retardation and Down Syndrome aren't going to be Harvard Graduates anytime soon. IQ research is important because researches are trying to create a sort of IQ pill that will raise the IQ of everyone. This will help low IQ people a lot.

But with the Black White IQ debate, I don't think Blacks have reached there full potential with the low IQ tests scores they have. IQ tests are not biased despite what some people say. Life is unfair and thats what IQ tests measure. But one thing to consider is Northern Blacks have higher IQ scores then Southern Whites. Immigrant Blacks have higher IQ then American Blacks. And American White and Black WW2 soldiers that had kids with Germans, both the half Black German and White German kids have equal IQ's.

First Borns have higher IQ's then their siblings. And singly born kids have high IQs. Most Nobel prize winners and NASA workers are first borns or singly born. The amount of time parents dedicate to their kids influences IQ. There is also an IQ cutoff of 140. Most Nobel prizes are given to people under 140 IQ, so having a natural born gift for High IQ isn't everything, its also your learning. Whats keeping American Blacks IQ low is their toxic ghetto culture. Anytime a Black tries to get an education they gets criticize for acting White or being an Uncle Tom. Theres lots of violence and aversion to work. Blacks that don't have this toxic culture are more successful.

Its also pretty ironic that Blacks are criticized for acting White when their culture didn't even come from Blacks, it came from White Southerners. Ebonics, the Arrogance and Violence came from White Rednecks that came to America from Europe. Ebonics originates from Europe. All the things said about the Irish like being adverse to work, education, being violent, lazy, is exact parallels to what they said about Blacks. There were signs that said "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" because they didn't want to deal with the trouble they'll bring. The High Violence between White Crackers is equivalent to violence between Blacks today. More Whites were lynched than Blacks, thats how violent they were to each other. Homicides were high between rednecks. Blacks got this toxic culture from them since most Blacks were in the South during slavery. This culture mostly largely died out but still survives in black ghetto neighborhoods. Its the culture holding Blacks back like it held back white rednecks. And Black Churches being known for being energetic and loud, that came from Whites.

Interesting. The situation might be different where you are, but here in Iowa I see a LOT of people who have stances along the lines of "well yeah the police obviously shouldn't be beating people up in general, but rioting and protesting like BLM isn't any better. (????) And by the way, why do 'black lives matter' more than anyone else?"

It's pretty disgusting, but then again Iowa is a super red state. So again, the center here is pulled much further right, especially in the middle-aged range

Most things said about the Police are lies. A systemic Police force is not being racist and killing blacks in high numbers. A lot of it is all made up. And some blacks are afraid to speak out because they are being threatened by their community if they do. And Blacks are suffering from this lie. If people knew how toxic some of black neighborhoods are then they'll realize how messed up this whole thing is and that innocent cops are being targeted.