Republicans Against Inequality?

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

This is clearly a pivot from traditional Republican talking points they’ve never said these things before, in fact they’ve always said the opposite.
 

Everything said in the OP above could he heard in the Occupy Wall Street protests or a Michael Moore film, just Remember how Republicans responded to those:  Any criticism of capitalism is socialism, the “free market” must be allowed to do as it pleases for better or for worse, the most dangerous words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

Imagine one of Romney’s guys talking like that! There is a definite shift going on with Republicans and Democrats on economic policy and it’s not hard to understand why. When your customers change, you either adapt your sales message or disappear. Both parties deliver a mixed message these days. The GOP have become much more, well, ‘nuanced’ on slashing entitlements. They saw what happened when they tried to axe Obamacare. 

With the Dems too one can see multiple shifts both in what they say and what they do. A generation ago a person who described themselves as a democratic socialist would have gotten nowhere in the presidential race. However, many Dems own pricey homes in the elite cities - thus Democratic politicians go gently on the nimby issue. The baleful effects of this are all too clear in places like California. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

This is clearly a pivot from traditional Republican talking points they’ve never said these things before, in fact they’ve always said the opposite.
 

I'm afraid that's simply not true.  It may seem that way to you but nope. Context matters, and Republicans have always supported these things and regulation in the market where it was seen as NECESSARY.  There's nothing new about it in the slightest. In fact a few of those points are republican in nature.

Lets take a quick look.

1 - pretty neutral. That's not interfering in the market, that''s just staying if you lose everyone's money you don't get a bonus. Tht's not really dem or republican.

2 - did you READ that letter? it is VERY anti-union.  Its first line DEMANDS that the free market be preserved. It speaks AGAINST any gov't regulation. it is EVERY BIT AS REPUBLICAN AS IT GETS. The democrats HATE all that stuff.  What he ALSO says is the free market only works if employees are able to freely negotiate and seeing as unions suck so bad a different model (Which unions hate)  that is currently illegal should be allowed so that workers aren't forced to unions and are able to freely discuss the value of their goods and services.  That is VERY republican.

3- Again - that is regulation to make the free market stronger. Republicans have always been 'anti-monopoly' in the market place and this makes sure the market is more free

4 - this is strategic.  This isn't about interfering in the market - covid taught us that reliance on other parties in other countries is dangerous boht to the market AND to strategic interests. SO they're looking at creating more capacity at home.  It is very republican to think strategically and spend money on what it perceives as the defense of the nation.

 

When you look at the context of all of those things there's NOTHING republicans 30 years ago woudln't have said in the same circumstances.

Sorry - these are not 'democrat' ideas that have been stolen.  In fact dems are going to HATE number 2 with a passion.

 

[impartialobserver]

Why do we use government to fix issues (real or perceived) in an economy? First, it is faster or appears to be faster. Second, the inputs and outputs can be defined. Depending solely on the free market is nebulous, vague, and can take a very long time (if ever). Now does government intervention really solve an issue? Quantitatively... yes. Qualitatively.. matter of opinion

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Why do we use government to fix issues (real or perceived) in an economy? First, it is faster or appears to be faster. Second, the inputs and outputs can be defined. Depending solely on the free market is nebulous, vague, and can take a very long time (if ever). Now does government intervention really solve an issue? Quantitatively... yes. Qualitatively.. matter of opinion

Sorry - none of that is accurate. Gov't involvement is rarely because it's 'faster', and the fact is the imputs and outputs are brutally hard to define. Measuring exactly how much activity precisely resulted from gov't action is often almost impossible, you can only get relatively close or make educated guesses.

Nothing produces more measurable results more quickly than the free market.  The free market has proven again and again it is the most efficient model for creating solutions and building overall wealth of the people.

However - unlike something like communism or socialism. capitalism and free markets are ONLY an economic model and not a governance model.   A truly free market is like a poker game - if you play LONG enough someone winds up with all the chips and you get a handful of monopolies and you lose all the benefits of the market system

So we use gov't to 'level the playing field' to make sure the market stays as free as possible, and we use gov't to push for things that may have value other than monetary which the market won't address directly, and occasionally when the market isnt' performing in a specific area we can incentivize activity.

 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - none of that is accurate. Gov't involvement is rarely because it's 'faster', and the fact is the imputs and outputs are brutally hard to define. Measuring exactly how much activity precisely resulted from gov't action is often almost impossible, you can only get relatively close or make educated guesses.

Nothing produces more measurable results more quickly than the free market.  The free market has proven again and again it is the most efficient model for creating solutions and building overall wealth of the people.

However - unlike something like communism or socialism. capitalism and free markets are ONLY an economic model and not a governance model.   A truly free market is like a poker game - if you play LONG enough someone winds up with all the chips and you get a handful of monopolies and you lose all the benefits of the market system

So we use gov't to 'level the playing field' to make sure the market stays as free as possible, and we use gov't to push for things that may have value other than monetary which the market won't address directly, and occasionally when the market isnt' performing in a specific area we can incentivize activity.

 

the inputs are easy to define.. you appropriate x amount of dollars. The outputs are number of jobs, amount of income, amount of consumption spending, amount of tax revenue. Depending solely on society to fix this issue (again real or perceived) is simply too nebuolous, vague, and open ended for most that are in politics or care greatly about it. Having an issue and saying that you will do nothing and simply let society solve it..... does not work for most. I wish that this was not the case.. seriously. I also wish that Boise State would win a championship in american college football but I am realistic enough to know why they will not. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

the inputs are easy to define.. you appropriate x amount of dollars.

It's not QUITE that easy.  For example to be accurate you would have to calculate the 'waste', the costs involved with delivering the money. It costs to have someone figure out who's getting it, cut the cheques, etc etc. THat is often on top of the allocated amount and is almost never calculated because it's not that simple.

Quote

The outputs are number of jobs, amount of income, amount of consumption spending, amount of tax revenue.

All of that is in fluctuation most of the time anyway. SO you're have to make a guess as to how much of what you did contributed to that. For example - when covid ended and the lockdowns stopped etc biden was also spending 'relief' money.  Well the stores were opening anyway so there was already going to be a massive surge in employment and economic activity as people went back to work - calculating exactly how much biden's spending helped can be hard.

As i noted, nobody is suggesting leaving everything to the market without input. The market is a financial model, not a model of governance. One wouldn't "allow the market" to settle a territorial dispute for example

But -  intervening in the market generally is the least efficient thing to do, it frequently has unintended side effects which are serious (like inflation) and it tends to reduce the overall effectiveness of the market.

So while it's occasionally necessary to preserve the market or sometimes to achieve things that the market would not normally address, it should be kept to a minimum and the market  should not be used as a crutch to attempt to push social engineering or bad policy.  It may be necessary to interfere with the market a little, but a minimalist approach is best.

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's not QUITE that easy.  For example to be accurate you would have to calculate the 'waste', the costs involved with delivering the money. It costs to have someone figure out who's getting it, cut the cheques, etc etc. THat is often on top of the allocated amount and is almost never calculated because it's not that simple.

All of that is in fluctuation most of the time anyway. SO you're have to make a guess as to how much of what you did contributed to that. For example - when covid ended and the lockdowns stopped etc biden was also spending 'relief' money.  Well the stores were opening anyway so there was already going to be a massive surge in employment and economic activity as people went back to work - calculating exactly how much biden's spending helped can be hard.

As i noted, nobody is suggesting leaving everything to the market without input. The market is a financial model, not a model of governance. One wouldn't "allow the market" to settle a territorial dispute for example

But -  intervening in the market generally is the least efficient thing to do, it frequently has unintended side effects which are serious (like inflation) and it tends to reduce the overall effectiveness of the market.

So while it's occasionally necessary to preserve the market or sometimes to achieve things that the market would not normally address, it should be kept to a minimum and the market  should not be used as a crutch to attempt to push social engineering or bad policy.  It may be necessary to interfere with the market a little, but a minimalist approach is best.

I tried to make it clear but my posts are not about the best methods or economic theory. It is about the mindset behind politicians and supporters wanting/demanding action. Humans are irrational and think in the short term. We also want some degree of certainty.. real or perceived. Government intervention gives us the illusion of some degree of certainty and it is done now.. not 5 years from now. In grad school for economics.. we did experiments such as someone wanting $1 right now or $1.50 in 3 days.. Guess what? 80+% of the time.. $1 now won out. Also, we did another one where they could $1 now or some amount between .75 and 3.00 tomorrow.. $1 now won out every single time. 

[BeaverFever]

On 6/23/2023 at 10:04 AM, Deluge said:

It's a special word reserved strictly for people like you. 

And your general disregard for life, freedom, tradition, pretty much anything that's worth fighting for is inexcusable. 

I don’t disregard any of those things just despicable internet trolls like you. 

[BeaverFever]

Meanwhile Republicans in Texas show us once again that despite their rhetoric they are anti-worker and don’t hesitate to micromanage local affairs with laws from the distant state capitol to serve their “free market” corporate clients 

 

Texas governor signs bill rescinding water breaks as deadly heat grips state

Measure will nullify local ordinances that provide workers protection from devastating, triple-digit temperatures

 

Amid a dangerous heatwave that has brought blistering temperatures across Texas, the state’s governor signed a law this week eliminating local rules requiring water breaks for workers.

The measure, which will take effect later this year, will nullify ordinances enacted by Austin and Dallas that mandate 10-minute breaks for construction workers every four hours. It also prevents any other local governments from passing similar worker protections.

 

Just days after Greg Abbott, the governor, ratified the law, officials said a 35-year-old utility lineman working to restore power in Marshall, Texas, died after experiencing symptoms of heat illness. The heat index – which takes into account both the temperature and humidity – was 100F (37C) while he was working.

It was an omen of what could come after HB 2127 takes effect in September, wrotethe Texas branch of the AFL-CIO union, referring to the far-reaching law that not only curbs cities’ right to enact worker protections, but a number of labor, agriculture, natural resources and finance measures. “Banning required rest breaks for construction workers in the Texas heat is deadly.”

The law’s passage has enraged workers’ advocates, who warn that it will result in even more heat-related deaths and illnesses in a state that already tallies the highest number of worker deaths due to high temperatures.

“In the midst of a record-setting heatwave, I could not think of a worse time for this governor or any elected official who has any, any kind of compassion, to do this,” said David Cruz, the communications director for League of United Latin American Citizens National (Lulac), a Latino civil rights group. “This administration is incrementally trying to move us backwards into a dark time in this nation. When plantation owners and agrarian mentalities prevailed.”

…..
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/greg-abbott-texas-governor-bill-water-breaks-heatwave

Edited June 25, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Michael Hardner]

On 6/23/2023 at 3:19 PM, impartialobserver said:

I tried to make it clear but my posts are not about the best methods or economic theory. It is about the mindset behind politicians and supporters wanting/demanding action. Humans are irrational and think in the short term. We also want some degree of certainty.. real or perceived. Government intervention gives us the illusion of some degree of certainty and it is done now.. not 5 years from now. In grad school for economics.. we did experiments such as someone wanting $1 right now or $1.50 in 3 days.. Guess what? 80+% of the time.. $1 now won out. Also, we did another one where they could $1 now or some amount between .75 and 3.00 tomorrow.. $1 now won out every single time. 

If you went to the grad school for economics, you are a unicorn around here and need to have your own form threads on relevant topics.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you went to the grad school for economics, you are a unicorn around here and need to have your own form threads on relevant topics.

So you're saying that YOU don't know anything about economics?   Good to know  

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t disregard any of those things just despicable internet trolls like you. 

You disregard all of it - you may even hate it.

Some say that indifference is worse than hate. I disagree. Hate is the antithesis of love, and that's exactly where you are: on the hating side of life. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Deluge

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Deluge said:

You disregard all of it - you may even hate it.

Some say that indifference is worse than hate. I disagree. Hate is the antithesis of love, and that's exactly where you are: on the hating side of life. 

Lol gosh look at you ,you’re so full of love, going around calling everyone sluts throwing out made-up insults left and right. LMAO

You’ve already shown to yourself to be one the most angry and hate-filled posters on this site

[reason10]

Boys and girls, wages are a market function, whether you like it or not. A person is paid what he/she is worth. (And FCK your trans bullshit here.)

A wage is a VOLUINTARY agreement between employer and employee. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

Of course, back when we had a LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP, his tax cuts BROUGHT HIGH PAYING MANUFACTURING JOBS BACK FROM THE FAR EAST.

Companies do not deliberately locate to the other side of the world unless US tax law forces them to go.

China is able to get away with SLAVE LABOR and violate international trade law because we have an unelected racist pedophile pretending to be president.

Once again, Democrats, SLAVERY IS YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE.

[reason10]

Oh, and boys and girls, INEQUALITY EXISTS whether you diaper soiling Nazis like it or not. Some people are smarter and work harder and get more of the rewards of life.

Of course, the DEMOCRATS have made all blacks equally miserable, from slavery to the Great Society.

It's the Republican conservatives who want to bring back the messiness of market capitalism, where all these uppity souls can actually work harder and smarter and make more money.

But you goose steppers can't allow that.

Sieg Heil.

[Deluge]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Lol gosh look at you ,you’re so full of love, going around calling everyone sluts throwing out made-up insults left and right. LMAO

You’ve already shown to yourself to be one the most angry and hate-filled posters on this site

Of course I'm full of love. I love all of God's children; but what I don't love is evil, and the left is full of evil - more so than on the Right.

It's not accurate to say that I'm angry and hate-filled. I am happy and confident. In fact, I am so happy and confident that I judge wrong behaviors without an ounce of hesitation or guilt.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Deluge

[impartialobserver]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Michael Hardner said:

If you went to the grad school for economics, you are a unicorn around here and need to have your own form threads on relevant topics.

A bit off topic but the internet forum world has another quirk. According to each poster... only they know economics, history, math, science. No one else knows anything. They should just bow down and worship at the alter of a particular poster. Interesting how if they are so omniscient.. they waste their time on a forum such as this. Yes, I have a phd in economics but do not know everything. My area of expertise is/was microeconomics and personal decision making. For example.. why someone buys one bag of chips for $1.49 and not the bigger bag for $1.99

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A bit off topic but the internet forum world has another quirk. According to each poster... only they know economics, history, math, science. No one else knows anything. They should just bow down and worship at the alter of a particular poster. Interesting how if they are so omniscient.. they waste their time on a forum such as this. Yes, I have a phd in economics but do not know everything. My area of expertise is/was microeconomics and personal decision making. For example.. why someone buys one bag of chips for $1.49 and not the bigger bag for $1.99

Well, smart people know that they know very very little.  

I listen to and read posts from the Peterson Institute to try - TRY, TRY, TRY - to understand trade.  And I am struck with two things:

- The immeasurable depth of complexity of the problems, and attendant care that these brilliant people apply to examining them.
- Their humility in describing their work

Well, microeconomics is interesting too as it's the molecular activity that bubbles up  I'm sure it would be fascinating even if we all are already experts here on trade, energy, etc.  Don't worry - there will be several dozens of people to shout you down if you try to post on macroeconomics... ?

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, smart people know that they know very very little.  

I listen to and read posts from the Peterson Institute to try - TRY, TRY, TRY - to understand trade.  And I am struck with two things:

- The immeasurable depth of complexity of the problems, and attendant care that these brilliant people apply to examining them.
- Their humility in describing their work

Well, microeconomics is interesting too as it's the molecular activity that bubbles up  I'm sure it would be fascinating even if we all are already experts here on trade, energy, etc.  Don't worry - there will be several dozens of people to shout you down if you try to post on macroeconomics... ?

Economics no matter the level is a mix of art and science. There is no absolute way to prove why someone buys x and not y. We take the bread crumbs and fill in the blanks. In Microeconomics, we simply have fewer bread crumbs because there are fewer trails (so to speak). That leads to a greater degree of certainty that you are piecing them together correctly. Macro.. you have infinite bread crumbs and no way of knowing the trail or trails

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Economics no matter the level is a mix of art and science. There is no absolute way to prove why someone buys x and not y. We take the bread crumbs and fill in the blanks. In Microeconomics, we simply have fewer bread crumbs because there are fewer trails (so to speak). That leads to a greater degree of certainty that you are piecing them together correctly. Macro.. you have infinite bread crumbs and no way of knowing the trail or trails

Without blowing your anonymity - what was your specialty ?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Without blowing your anonymity - what was your specialty ?

Economics of personal decision making. For example.. why someone opts to drive instead of public transit. Why we opt for the single family home instead of apts.. topics like that. 

[robosmith]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:13 AM, reason10 said:

WRONG. There is no such thing as FOS LIES. And you are an idi0t.

The Treason Times is nothing more than fake news. Only idi0ts read it.

Fox is the most trusted name in journalism today. Only mor0ns think otherwise.

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2013-11-11/graph4.jpg

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kufm/files/styles/x_large/public/201509/MT-news-survey-slide-15.jpg

http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/fox-news-new-logo-fair-and-balanced-most-trusted-most-watched.jpg

 

The Treason Times isn't on any list, you idi0t.

 

It's really cute the way you BELIEVE a random interwebz poster here has a FRACTION of the credibility of a 100 year old newspaper with the monicker "paper of RECORD."

IOW, all you have is BULLSHIT and memes.

[robosmith]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:15 AM, reason10 said:

An American president does not PRESIDE over the government. The American government is THREE separate and EQUAL branches.

The very NAME PRESIDEnt says OTHERWISE. Duh

And the branches ARE NOT "EQUAL." Esp not right now when the SCOTUS is insisting they are accountable to NO ONE.

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The very NAME PRESIDEnt says OTHERWISE. Duh

And the branches ARE NOT "EQUAL." Esp not right now when the SCOTUS is insisting they are accountable to NO ONE.

You aren't even an educated teenager. You are  a stupid one.

They are EQUAL in that they can cancel each other out. The President (back when we had a legally elected one) appoints the Supreme Court Justices. The Congress can IMPEACH a Supreme Court Justice.

Congress passes a bill and the President can veto it, or the Supreme Court can decide it is not politically correct, (formerly the standard was CONSTITUTIONAL).

You are typically BLUE STATE STUPID.

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The very NAME PRESIDEnt says OTHERWISE. Duh

And the branches ARE NOT "EQUAL." Esp not right now when the SCOTUS is insisting they are accountable to NO ONE.

Very good, numbnuts - the President does preside. What he doesn't do is preside over the duties of Congress and the Senate. 

You see, stupid, the government is not a banana republic. It consists of three separate branches of government; each of which has the power to keep the other two in check. It's a wonderful system that is even surviving this woketard anarchy. We will get through your stupidity, one way or the other, because we're a free country and that's what free countries do - they fight evil.