Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, Economy said: For me I think the left has the general right idea that the system unfairly favour rich, that they aren't paying their fair share and that we need more fair redistribution and that it's not necessary for the average person to struggle as much as they do if the economic pie was more fairly divided What I don't like about the left tho is often they tend to oversimplify a lot of things without understanding it properly. To give just one example they talk about wealth from billionaires in stock market like if it can all be redistributed. It cannot, the cash for it all doesn't even exist. A typical stock trades for 15X to 17X actual earnings which means the wealth in value of these assets is not actually backed up by an equivalent amount of income or purchasing power. It ends up being an illusion to a large extent. U could never actually liquidate however many trillions all the billionaires own in assets and think u can use the equivalent of dollars purchasing power to pay for whatever programs u think u can So sometimes the left does not understand some basic facts and technicalities of how things work and they start to over simplify or exagerate some proposals I also think some want to hate on the rich so badly that they automatically dismiss some arguments too quickly on why some regulations or tax types or whatever it may be might have too many downsides or unintended consequences. Not all arguments against a left idea is because ur trying to lick a corporates boots. There can legitimately be valid reasons to think certain proposals may not work and is worth debating without automatically just brushing it off So in short I agree with the left on more things than I agree with on the right but I also think most on the left have an incomplete understanding of economy tbh and tend to oversimplify some stuff. They are very good at understanding the human and emotional aspect of economics but they tend to suck at understanding the technical part of economics (which is also a key factor) The Left 'in general' has the people's welfare first priority ... that Good. but as you say,, the don't always recognize the effect their policies have overall, ... while 'tax the rich' to even out the wealth isn't a horrible concept and would make the overall economy healthier...the methods currently being applied are more damaging than helping the problem .. Look at downtown LA and tell me that the current policies are equalizing things... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,478 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 5 minutes ago, Economy said: So in short I agree with the left on more things than I agree with on the right but I also think most on the left have an incomplete understanding of economy tbh and tend to oversimplify some stuff. They are very good at understanding the human and emotional aspect of economics but they tend to suck at understanding the technical part of economics (which is also a key factor) That's why I'm kind of happy with the state of things on the left. I LOVE that influential voices like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC are pushing the reality of people's struggles to the public eye and putting pressure on Democrats to never forget what policies we support. I'm so looking forward to people like them being our leaders one day. However, I'm also happy that seasoned leaders like Biden and Pelosi are actually in charge to make incremental change and not allow everything to fall apart. And I know I'm triggering some leftists here but that's just my mindset Whimsical bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 Just now, Woolfsmck said: The Left 'in general' has the people's welfare first priority ... that Good. but as you say,, the don't always recognize the effect their policies have overall, ... while 'tax the rich' to even out the wealth isn't a horrible concept and would make the overall economy healthier...the methods currently being applied are more damaging than helping the problem .. Look at downtown LA and tell me that the current policies are equalizing things... Every policy has its pros and cons... How it's implemented matters too and how agressive it is can also alter the pros vs cons ratio. Also in a certain set of circumstances a certain policy could be a net benefit while in another set of circumstances the exact same policy may have more cons than pros This is why I don't strictly identify into the standard right wing, left wing or centrist kinds view. I'm more about common sense and looking at the big picture Ppl tend to have a tunnel vision view on politics and it tends to be about taking sides. I'm not about taking sides or having some Partizan view or line of thinking of group of ppl I wanna belong to I think that's how policy and politics should be but unfortunately that's exactly what it's not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAsUnic0rn 2,245 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 22 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: give it up ... no one can 'prove' every thing they post ... and simply because I stated my position first doesn't mean my statement 'need' proof ... be serious LINDA.. you stated your opinion as fact. Facts can be proven. @Jill argued that your statement wasn’t true, and when you said you’re in the right she asked for proof. You weren’t able to provide and thus lost the debate, because her side was. In court you can’t just claim “Mister Miller robbed me.” and he gets convinced because neither of you two can prove themselves. It’s the same in the court of public opinion. I’m so done with the “it’s my opinion, freedom of speech!” argument, to hide the fact that you said misleading things, got proven wrong and after being corrected you start to backpedal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 14 minutes ago, PartySick said: That's why I'm kind of happy with the state of things on the left. I LOVE that influential voices like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC are pushing the reality of people's struggles to the public eye and putting pressure on Democrats to never forget what policies we support. I'm so looking forward to people like them being our leaders one day. However, I'm also happy that seasoned leaders like Biden and Pelosi are actually in charge to make incremental change and not allow everything to fall apart. And I know I'm triggering some leftists here but that's just my mindset Bernie Sanders and AOC to me are these genuine politicians idealists that want to bring fourth the reality of the ppls struggles to the forefront and I whole heartedly give them credit and respect them for that I definitely don't think they are always very balanced or realistic or understand all of the potential drawbacks of their ideas tho no matter how well intentioned they may be For example I gave u an example of wealth in assets & stocks vs traditional income and cash and actual purchasing power... And there is actual irrefutable mathematics on why u cannot tax more than a certain amount of wealth on wallstreet for redistribution or to pay for programs. The value of the assets would fall much faster than the amount actually taxed out of it and the wealth base would fall rather quickly factoring that in When u look at how much Bernie Sanders thinks u can get from a wealth tax on wallstreet and billionaires to pay for stuff... It's actually quite clear he doesn't fully understand the concept or the math. He's kinda looking at that wealth in the same way ud look at cash. Most expert economists for simmilar reasons also didn't think his revenue targets were at all realistic So politicians like Bernie or AOC in my opinion are better to bring attention to human struggle and to make noise in a certain direction. I definitely do not think if they were elected and managed to actually pass the policies the way they want to all the way to the level they desire that it would necessarily be a good thing and I think many would be disappointed with the lackluster results and worse unintended consequences than imagined by them I think @Woolfsmck would agree with me on this one too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 56 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said: LINDA.. you stated your opinion as fact. Facts can be proven. @Jill argued that your statement wasn’t true, and when you said you’re in the right she asked for proof. You weren’t able to provide and thus lost the debate, because her side was. In court you can’t just claim “Mister Miller robbed me.” and he gets convinced because neither of you two can prove themselves. It’s the same in the court of public opinion. I’m so done with the “it’s my opinion, freedom of speech!” argument, to hide the fact that you said misleading things, got proven wrong and after being corrected you start to backpedal. go away.. look at party stick's graphs.... I can 'prove' my claims from those just as easily .... as far as win or loosing the debate ... this is a discussion ,, not a competition ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 58 minutes ago, Economy said: Bernie Sanders and AOC to me are these genuine politicians idealists that want to bring fourth the reality of the ppls struggles to the forefront and I whole heartedly give them credit and respect them for that I definitely don't think they are always very balanced or realistic or understand all of the potential drawbacks of their ideas tho no matter how well intentioned they may be For example I gave u an example of wealth in assets & stocks vs traditional income and cash and actual purchasing power... And there is actual irrefutable mathematics on why u cannot tax more than a certain amount of wealth on wallstreet for redistribution or to pay for programs. The value of the assets would fall much faster than the amount actually taxed out of it and the wealth base would fall rather quickly factoring that in When u look at how much Bernie Sanders thinks u can get from a wealth tax on wallstreet and billionaires to pay for stuff... It's actually quite clear he doesn't fully understand the concept or the math. He's kinda looking at that wealth in the same way ud look at cash. Most expert economists for simmilar reasons also didn't think his revenue targets were at all realistic So politicians like Bernie or AOC in my opinion are better to bring attention to human struggle and to make noise in a certain direction. I definitely do not think if they were elected and managed to actually pass the policies the way they want to all the way to the level they desire that it would necessarily be a good thing and I think many would be disappointed with the lackluster results and worse unintended consequences than imagined by them I think @Woolfsmck would agree with me on this one too I agree that Bernie and AOC have genuine intentions and want to right by the voters ... Bernie's math is clearly missing some numbers to be realistic ... AOC needs more experience in communicating with the other policy makers, washington kinda has its own 'language' ... also, her policy proposals need to be better researched as to how they would affect the economy ... she gets people to listen, now she needs to say something that higher level government officials will listen too ... conservatives only listen to conservative proposals ,, liberals ... ect... Moderates will take in all info and consider the consiquenses of their decisions more thoroughly, ... we hope, like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJRocketMan 2,684 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 4 hours ago, Dulo Peep said: i love when actual smart people give their opinion! Why i don't see you here often? Amazing reply. I’m on GGD a whole lot, but there haven’t been many topics I’ve been compelled to comment on as of late. Also I’ve been teaching myself economics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJRocketMan 2,684 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 4 hours ago, Woolfsmck said: Not true ... property taxes directly result in higher rents for 'everyone' who rents. Retail rent gets paid for by 'higher' prices for 'everyone' The tax rates of the 1950's are completely irrelevant to current economic conditions. I know. I was talking about federal marginal income tax raises. Property taxes are kind of a double edged sword. I HATE how they’re used to fund public school and they affect rents for apartment dwellers, but they’re good for funding law enforcement/the fire department and paving roads and such. No surprise about the retail rents. I think we Americans consume too much anyways. Not really. History repeats itself. We’re in a second Gilded Age. And we have been since the 2000’s, although the seeds were sown in the 1980’s. Do you know what the Gilded Age was? It was a period of general economic growth and relative strength but only the elite saw the benefits and the working class were paid peanuts. Gee, sounds awfully similar to today. Our income inequality is the worst it’s been since before WW2. The United States has been practicing supply-side economics since Reagan was elected. Whereas before (starting with FDR) America was practicing demand-side economics. The economy doesn’t grow when you cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy — it grows when you free up money on the middle and lower classes. Now we’ve dug ourselves into a hole that we seemingly can’t get ourselves out of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 3 hours ago, AJRocketMan said: I know. I was talking about federal marginal income tax raises. Property taxes are kind of a double edged sword. I HATE how they’re used to fund public school and they affect rents for apartment dwellers, but they’re good for funding law enforcement/the fire department and paving roads and such. No surprise about the retail rents. I think we Americans consume too much anyways. Not really. History repeats itself. We’re in a second Gilded Age. And we have been since the 2000’s, although the seeds were sown in the 1980’s. Do you know what the Gilded Age was? It was a period of general economic growth and relative strength but only the elite saw the benefits and the working class were paid peanuts. Gee, sounds awfully similar to today. Our income inequality is the worst it’s been since before WW2. The United States has been practicing supply-side economics since Reagan was elected. Whereas before (starting with FDR) America was practicing demand-side economics. The economy doesn’t grow when you cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy — it grows when you free up money on the middle and lower classes. Now we’ve dug ourselves into a hole that we seemingly can’t get ourselves out of. Firsts off ... 1950's us economy was primarily manufacturing .... little or no global trade ... the EU countries were rubble.. and Germany was almost dead... Two...the USA was comprise of european immigrants and Americans who have roots going back a couple of generations... Three ... consumerism didn't exist, neither did plastic or the internet ... 'Rich' people had one black and white TV ... most of the us budget went to military and infrastructure ... So saying the old tax rate was fine,,, for that era ... the US is a very different place and the people are too.... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJRocketMan 2,684 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 5 hours ago, Woolfsmck said: Firsts off ... 1950's us economy was primarily manufacturing .... little or no global trade ... the EU countries were rubble.. and Germany was almost dead... Two...the USA was comprise of european immigrants and Americans who have roots going back a couple of generations... Three ... consumerism didn't exist, neither did plastic or the internet ... 'Rich' people had one black and white TV ... most of the us budget went to military and infrastructure ... So saying the old tax rate was fine,,, for that era ... the US is a very different place and the people are too.... Yes, I know all that stuff. Also, how does the second point have anything to do with the economy back then? A bunch of the US budget also went to entitlement spending — in other words, welfare and social security. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petie Estie 5,704 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 can we ignore wolfsmack already, every time they post it's some bullshit Call your therapist...it's Petie Estie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 5 hours ago, SEANGT said: can we ignore wolfsmack already, every time they post it's some bullshit I appreciate it when tunnel visioned members don't post ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 15, 2021 Author Share Posted January 15, 2021 5 hours ago, AJRocketMan said: Yes, I know all that stuff. Also, how does the second point have anything to do with the economy back then? A bunch of the US budget also went to entitlement spending — in other words, welfare and social security. The people influence the economy in their spending and patronage ... The comparison to post WWII US vs. current isn't accurate at all. The current US budget tops a trillion ... 1950 didn't have a word for trillion yet.. The sheer volume of currency the current gov. handles is staggering by comparison to post WWII ... I think more in depth study is required to continue this line of debate ... sorry but you seem to lack it ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAsUnic0rn 2,245 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 18 hours ago, Woolfsmck said: go away.. look at party stick's graphs.... I can 'prove' my claims from those just as easily .... as far as win or loosing the debate ... this is a discussion ,, not a competition ... lol. but „it‘s my opinion!!!1!1!1!1!1!!1!11“ is not an argument, sooo... stop trying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.