|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 18:41:26 GMT
Funny that the anti-establishment populists want to return us to gilded age outcomes by replacing progressive taxation with regressive. Maybe they aren't anti-establishment after all. It ain't the anti-establishment populists who seek rapid economic growth uber alles and call all policies that would curb that rapid economic growth (that goes to benefit the wealthy) ... anti American.
You guys seem to do some rather selective arguing referencing the Gilded Age.
Queshank
I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically, and that reducing it doesn't harm the common person. At the end of the day, we can squint and look sideways at political economy all day long, but we will never make regressive taxes populist, or anti-establishment, or pro-worker. It's elitism through and through. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:43:29 GMT
It ain't the anti-establishment populists who seek rapid economic growth uber alles and call all policies that would curb that rapid economic growth (that goes to benefit the wealthy) ... anti American.
You guys seem to do some rather selective arguing referencing the Gilded Age.
Queshank
I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically, and that reducing it doesn't harm the common person. At the end of the day, we can squint and look sideways at political economy all day long, but we will never make regressive taxes populist, or anti-establishment, or pro-worker. It's elitism through and through.
Seems like you're dabbling in trickle down lately? Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 18:59:29 GMT
I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically, and that reducing it doesn't harm the common person. At the end of the day, we can squint and look sideways at political economy all day long, but we will never make regressive taxes populist, or anti-establishment, or pro-worker. It's elitism through and through.
Seems like you're dabbling in trickle down lately? Queshank
No, concerns with economic growth or real wage growth, etc is not "trickle down economics." Let's not get "caught up" in terms. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:12:51 GMT
Seems like you're dabbling in trickle down lately? Queshank
No, concerns with economic growth or real wage growth, etc is not "trickle down economics." Let's not get "caught up" in terms.
I'm more referring to your statement "I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically."
Yer gonna get your shiny new leftist badge revoked with questions like that  j/k
Between that and your robust promotion of unchecked immigration to keep wages down for employers, I'm seeing a trend is all so I thought I'd comment.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:18:27 GMT
No, concerns with economic growth or real wage growth, etc is not "trickle down economics." Let's not get "caught up" in terms.
I'm more referring to your statement "I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically."
Yer gonna get your shiny new leftist badge revoked with questions like that j/k
Between that and your robust promotion of unchecked immigration to keep wages down for employers, I'm seeing a trend is all so I thought I'd comment.
Queshank
None of this has any connection to "trickle down economics." You can stake out an anarcho-primitivist position on economics and economic growth but don't expect it to appeal to people worried about making rent, or affording the basics of life. Those challenges get worse, not better, under "gilded age" policies. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:20:49 GMT
I'm more referring to your statement "I question the premise that economic growth is a benefit for the wealthy specifically."
Yer gonna get your shiny new leftist badge revoked with questions like that j/k
Between that and your robust promotion of unchecked immigration to keep wages down for employers, I'm seeing a trend is all so I thought I'd comment.
Queshank
None of this has any connection to "trickle down economics." You can stake out an anarcho-primitivist position on economics and economic growth but don't expect it to appeal to people worried about making rent, or affording the basics of life. Those challenges get worse, not better, under "gilded age" policies.
You mean like we're living in now after 25-30 years of the establishment creating a post soviet union pro rich people's ROI franchised colonialism world order ...
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:24:50 GMT
None of this has any connection to "trickle down economics." You can stake out an anarcho-primitivist position on economics and economic growth but don't expect it to appeal to people worried about making rent, or affording the basics of life. Those challenges get worse, not better, under "gilded age" policies.
You mean like we're living in now after 25-30 years of the establishment creating a post soviet union pro rich people's ROI franchised colonialism world order ...
Queshank
You're not going to fix that through regressive policy approaches. We can recognize a problem exists without agitating to make it worse. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:33:33 GMT
You mean like we're living in now after 25-30 years of the establishment creating a post soviet union pro rich people's ROI franchised colonialism world order ...
Queshank
You're not going to fix that through regressive policy approaches. We can recognize a problem exists without agitating to make it worse.
You're also not going to fix it by doubling down on all the policies that created it. Enter Trump and the working class's hail mary gamble.
Perhaps you should just stop trying to compare the economy of today to the economy of 1880? It just looks silly man.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:42:04 GMT
You're not going to fix that through regressive policy approaches. We can recognize a problem exists without agitating to make it worse.
You're also not going to fix it by doubling down on all the policies that created it. Enter Trump and the working class's hail mary gamble.
Perhaps you should just stop trying to compare the economy of today to the economy of 1880? It just looks silly man.
Queshank
I am not the one defending doubling down on those policies. That's you. I would push the Democrats into a more radical, novel approach to policy. You're supporting the party of tax cuts, big deficits and debts, money printing, and regressive taxation. And pretending we just don't know how it might turn out. That looks silly. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:45:26 GMT
You're also not going to fix it by doubling down on all the policies that created it. Enter Trump and the working class's hail mary gamble.
Perhaps you should just stop trying to compare the economy of today to the economy of 1880? It just looks silly man.
Queshank
I am not the one defending doubling down on those policies. That's you. I would push the Democrats into a more radical, novel approach to policy. You're supporting the party of tax cuts, big deficits and debts, money printing, and regressive taxation. And pretending we just don't know how it might turn out. That looks silly.
You're supporting the same ... or you wouldn't need to "push" the Democrats anywhere.
And it's the very fact that the Democrats cannot and will not be pushed ... and the Trumplicans can ... that I argue the GNP (Grand New Party) is a better home than the Democrats.
It looks like Bernie is gearing up to start a 3rd party. Let's both cross our fingers that it gets some traction. But ... with the Democrats willing to tear the country apart rhetorically to preserve power ... my money is on progressives becoming even more irrelevant.
You wanna push? MAGA is pushing. Democrats are standing their ground and calling all pushes treason. Careful you don't push too hard and wind up on a list  (had to embellish a bit)
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:49:25 GMT
I am not the one defending doubling down on those policies. That's you. I would push the Democrats into a more radical, novel approach to policy. You're supporting the party of tax cuts, big deficits and debts, money printing, and regressive taxation. And pretending we just don't know how it might turn out. That looks silly.
You're supporting the same ... or you wouldn't need to "push" the Democrats anywhere.
And it's the very fact that the Democrats cannot and will not be pushed ... and the Trumplicans can ... that I argue the GNP (Grand New Party) is a better home than the Democrats.
It looks like Bernie is gearing up to start a 3rd party. Let's both cross our fingers that it gets some traction. But ... with the Democrats willing to tear the country apart rhetorically to preserve power ... my money is on progressives becoming even more irrelevant.
You wanna push? MAGA is pushing. Democrats are standing their ground and calling all pushes treason. Careful you don't push too hard and wind up on a list (had to embellish a bit)
Queshank
I have said from day one of this discussion between us that the Democrats would be the better vehicle for left-wing change than the GOP. If we are talking about taxing the wealthy, funding infrastructure, funding transfer programs & the safety net, supporting unions, worker protections and other regulations protecting our food, medicine and environment, enforcing anti-trust, etc if this is the subject and we have left wing values, there is only one choice and as flawed as they are, it's the Democrats. The GOP is pushing in the opposite direction and that's not likely to change. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,496
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:57:05 GMT
You're supporting the same ... or you wouldn't need to "push" the Democrats anywhere.
And it's the very fact that the Democrats cannot and will not be pushed ... and the Trumplicans can ... that I argue the GNP (Grand New Party) is a better home than the Democrats.
It looks like Bernie is gearing up to start a 3rd party. Let's both cross our fingers that it gets some traction. But ... with the Democrats willing to tear the country apart rhetorically to preserve power ... my money is on progressives becoming even more irrelevant.
You wanna push? MAGA is pushing. Democrats are standing their ground and calling all pushes treason. Careful you don't push too hard and wind up on a list (had to embellish a bit)
Queshank
I have said from day one of this discussion between us that the Democrats would be the better vehicle for left-wing change than the GOP. If we are talking about taxing the wealthy, funding infrastructure, funding transfer programs & the safety net, supporting unions, worker protections and other regulations protecting our food, medicine and environment, enforcing anti-trust, etc if this is the subject and we have left wing values, there is only one choice and as flawed as they are, it's the Democrats. The GOP is pushing in the opposite direction and that's not likely to change.
And I used to argue ... vociferously ... that the Democrats would be the better vehicle for libertarian change than the GOP back when you and rabbit both supported the GOP and I, the Democrats. Things have changed.
Tax discussions are policy discussions. Not value discussions.
What I have realized after 35 years of being involved in Dem politics ... is they are not going to change. They are slaves to running up the score in blue areas. They had an opportunity to change. The Bernie movement. They soundly rejected it. And have spent every moment since grinding it under their heels. Or we wouldn't be dealing with the drip drip drip of leftists abandoning the Dems and joining the MAGA movement. (A phenomenon I predicted would happen 8 years ago and have been entertained watching slowly happen ever since.)
The Democrats cannot be swayed. You're chasing a pipe dream. They are slaves to the donor class at this point. Running up the score in deep blue areas, ignoring the rest of the country, and setting the stage for being a regional power going forward. (Another argument I used to make pre Covid scrambling people's brains into a highly sensitized fear response.)
The Democrats are more likely to exploit more tragedies in the service of their donors than they are change as a result of popular pressure. The entire reason people are abandoning the Democrats (as this most recent election shows the trend continuing) is because they will not and cannot change. The only question is whether that fearmongering will be effective. It seems to be running its course. But I see Dems just doubling down on it so it doesn't give me much hope for a brighter future. This being what it's like to live at the end of a golden age.
I really do have to go. Seeya next week.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 20:05:26 GMT
I have said from day one of this discussion between us that the Democrats would be the better vehicle for left-wing change than the GOP. If we are talking about taxing the wealthy, funding infrastructure, funding transfer programs & the safety net, supporting unions, worker protections and other regulations protecting our food, medicine and environment, enforcing anti-trust, etc if this is the subject and we have left wing values, there is only one choice and as flawed as they are, it's the Democrats. The GOP is pushing in the opposite direction and that's not likely to change.
And I used to argue ... vociferously ... that the Democrats would be the better vehicle for libertarian change than the GOP back when you and rabbit both supported the GOP and I, the Democrats. Things have changed.
Tax discussions are policy discussions. Not value discussions.
What I have realized after 35 years of being involved in Dem politics ... is they are not going to change. They are slaves to running up the score in blue areas. They had an opportunity to change. The Bernie movement. They soundly rejected it. And have spent every moment since grinding it under their heels. Or we wouldn't be dealing with the drip drip drip of leftists abandoning the Dems and joining the MAGA movement. (A phenomenon I predicted would happen 8 years ago and have been entertained watching slowly happen ever since.)
The Democrats cannot be swayed. You're chasing a pipe dream. They are slaves to the donor class at this point. Running up the score in deep blue areas, ignoring the rest of the country, and setting the stage for being a regional power going forward. (Another argument I used to make pre Covid scrambling people's brains into a highly sensitized fear response.)
The Democrats are more likely to exploit more tragedies in the service of their donors than they are change as a result of popular pressure. The entire reason people are abandoning the Democrats (as this most recent election shows the trend continuing) is because they will not and cannot change. The only question is whether that fearmongering will be effective. It seems to be running its course. But I see Dems just doubling down on it so it doesn't give me much hope for a brighter future. This being what it's like to live at the end of a golden age.
I really do have to go. Seeya next week.
Queshank
Take care. I'll digest this and get something down soon. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,631
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 16, 2024 22:55:56 GMT
He was explaining a concept, using easy to understand numbers. He was trying to accommodate for people like YOU, lol. But you didn't get the concept. Word salad, in your ears. Freon
Nah. What he was doing was prefacing his argument and framing the issue in such a way as to manipulate people like YOU.
I mean. He argues first that US companies are selling the same products for the same price as foreign companies.
And then ... talking out of both sides of his mouth ... he argues that US companies that sell those products don't even exist ...
Perhaps I could interest you in some books on rhetoric and persuasion? "Don't Think of an Elephant" makes a good primer for the initiate.
Queshank
Since I do not consider you qualified to even have this discussion (nor do I consider myself so), why not just find those who are, and link their evaluation. That's what I did. That would be a reasonable means of expressing your points. What I see in that video (and others), are people who ARE qualified, who have presented a reasonable argument, and factored in historic precedent. If you are SO confident that you understand what is going to happen, then it should be easy to find others who see it similarly. Freon |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,631
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 16, 2024 22:59:59 GMT
MY analysis? I listened to what he and others have explained, and I am presenting THEIR analysis here. I am not an expert at this stuff, as all you who are picking apart his arguments seem to be. And since none of you are experts either, that you feel qualified to counter him with your OWN analysis, shows you are talking out of your anuses. The appropriate response, if you disagree, is to link a video that shows a different conclusion by someone equally as qualified. Freon What part did he say standard of living and quality of goods went down from the mid 1800s to early 1900s? Would 50% longer lifespans indicate a higher standard of living or lower? And now you want to have link-wars? Now you want to play the expert game? I’m not arguing for tariffs here, though I think they would be preferable to an income tax if given the choice of one vs the other… Lifespans? Lifespans? This is why it is pointless conversing with uneducated people. You think correlation is causation, when you have no evidence that it is at all. As to sharing links, I am fighting no war. I am simply presenting one side of the argument, and I am open to hearing the other. But I'm not seeing anyone produce the other. Now why would that be? Your guy has thoroughly thought this through, right? Genius and all, that he is. History has shown that the last time taxes were based on tariffs, things went REALLY badly. Is that not worth discussing? Do you have THAT much confidence in the magical people you've now elected? Freon |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,631
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 16, 2024 23:02:32 GMT
MY analysis? I listened to what he and others have explained, and I am presenting THEIR analysis here. I am not an expert at this stuff, as all you who are picking apart his arguments seem to be. And since none of you are experts either, that you feel qualified to counter him with your OWN analysis, shows you are talking out of your anuses. The appropriate response, if you disagree, is to link a video that shows a different conclusion by someone equally as qualified. Freon What is his expertise? I mean besides being an advertising exec, morphing into ... using advertisements like that video to sell you into subscribing to his podcast? (Where's the morph really? amirite?) Queshank Ahh, so you've switched from attacking his points, to attacking his credibility. But what about the credibility of those proposing a tariff-based economic system? Do you even KNOW who has proposed it? You voted for this, so I'm naturally curious to understand what level of vetting you did when you set this all in motion. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Nov 16, 2024 23:56:06 GMT
The gilded age is included in that time frame you dumb moron. Lol. Holy shit. Poor Shitbag. Voted to return to the Gilded Age - where people like him were crushed under foot by corrupt monied interests who owned the government. So Fucking. Dumb. Lol where people like him were crushed under foot by corrupt monied interests who owned the governmentThe NeanderTard is completely unaware of what is happening around him right now. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Nov 16, 2024 23:56:38 GMT
What part did he say standard of living and quality of goods went down from the mid 1800s to early 1900s? Would 50% longer lifespans indicate a higher standard of living or lower? And now you want to have link-wars? Now you want to play the expert game? I’m not arguing for tariffs here, though I think they would be preferable to an income tax if given the choice of one vs the other… Lifespans? Lifespans? This is why it is pointless conversing with uneducated people. You think correlation is causation, when you have no evidence that it is at all. As to sharing links, I am fighting no war. I am simply presenting one side of the argument, and I am open to hearing the other. But I'm not seeing anyone produce the other. Now why would that be? Your guy has thoroughly thought this through, right? Genius and all, that he is. History has shown that the last time taxes were based on tariffs, things went REALLY badly. Is that not worth discussing? Do you have THAT much confidence in the magical people you've now elected? Freon Once again, I’m not arguing in favor of tariffs. But I also don’t think the period of time that roughly falls between 1850 and 1930 was a period of massive suffering due to lower standard of living and diminishing product quality. You keep stating it as if it’s a given. I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’re nearly as smart as you think you are. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,631
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 17, 2024 0:49:57 GMT
Lifespans? Lifespans? This is why it is pointless conversing with uneducated people. You think correlation is causation, when you have no evidence that it is at all. As to sharing links, I am fighting no war. I am simply presenting one side of the argument, and I am open to hearing the other. But I'm not seeing anyone produce the other. Now why would that be? Your guy has thoroughly thought this through, right? Genius and all, that he is. History has shown that the last time taxes were based on tariffs, things went REALLY badly. Is that not worth discussing? Do you have THAT much confidence in the magical people you've now elected? Freon Once again, I’m not arguing in favor of tariffs. But I also don’t think the period of time that roughly falls between 1850 and 1930 was a period of massive suffering due to lower standard of living and diminishing product quality. You keep stating it as if it’s a given. I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’re nearly as smart as you think you are. But you ARE arguing for tariffs. That's what Donald promised, and that's who voted for. What am I missing, here, rabbit? Why would you vote for someone with this acknowledged policy, if you did NOT want it. As to that period being one of great suffering, I can only suggest you study your history. The regulations we have today are a function of corporations abusing their powers during that time, and the government responding by protecting its citizens from them. But I am not saying we should increase regulations. In fact, I would have them decrease. I believe in modifying the current system to make it more efficient and appropriate, not gutting it for something that failed so badly, it led to what we now use as its replacement. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Nov 17, 2024 1:02:04 GMT
Once again, I’m not arguing in favor of tariffs. But I also don’t think the period of time that roughly falls between 1850 and 1930 was a period of massive suffering due to lower standard of living and diminishing product quality. You keep stating it as if it’s a given. I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’re nearly as smart as you think you are. But you ARE arguing for tariffs. No I am not. If you don’t know how to hold a conversation, then I suppose we’re done. What you refuse to do is back up your assertion that standard of living and quality of goods fell from 1850 to 1930. I know why. |
|
j/k
(had to embellish a bit)
