Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 176

Putting aside the whole dismal science (econ 101) shtick, Baalim's fear-based slippery slope worldview is reducible to this:







No point in being polite and pretending like these people can be rational. Just laugh at them.

Edit: Chomsky driving the same point home:

"The American version of “libertarianism” is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds.

The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: “No, I’m a libertarian, I’m against that tax”—but of course, I’m still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard [American academic]—and if you just read the world that they describe, it’s a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don’t have roads because you don’t see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you’re not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don’t like the pollution from somebody’s automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It’s a world built on hatred.

The whole thing’s not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn’t function for a second—and if it could, all you’d want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it’s not really serious."

There probably isn't a better advertisement for Sanders/Warren policies than the movie The Big Short.

Lol @ Milo being so broke and irrelevant that he has to resort to leaking shit from his fascist brethren to get attention. And to think fucking liberals were duped by these guys for so long. But yeah, deplatforming clearly doesn't work. It couldn't have played a part in why they're so desperate now. Meanwhile, Stefan Molyneux is begging for donations and saying his "show" won't be able to go on because of the big bad leftist meanies who deplatform him and "lie" about him on his Wikipedia page too.

I don't know who comes off the worst. Molyneux, Spencer, or Southern. Well, pretty clearly Spencer comes off the worst. Then it's probably Molyneux then Southern but wow. Keep up the good work everybody.

Baal might STILL believe punching Zizek is the same as punching Spencer. These righties have weird beliefs. I liked Stroggoz's post in my blog about Righty Rhetoric. It's absurd at times. We have to stare the absurdity in the face and not be nerds about it. I like your Chomsky quote. We all have to learn from each other.

On November 03 2019 11:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: .. For households worth between $50 million and 1 billion, and higher % for households worth more than a billion. Sounds good to me, imo nobody should have $50 mill and most certainly not 1 billion.

It's not just a matter if somebody should have that kind of money or not, if it were just than then I would agree, but its also a matter of understanding that the economy isn't a zero sum game, this person creates thousands of jobs and products, its not a matter of "would you rather give 1billion to Bezos or poor people" its weather if it will be an overall good to society to create a government apparatus dedicated for a wealth cap, it has more ripples than you seem to realize.

On November 03 2019 11:20 Stroggoz wrote: and elizabeth warren comes along with a policy to undo about less than 0.1% of what the rich have done over the neoliberal era, and apparently this makes her a 'fucking retard'. I mean that's the standard bougousie reaction i guess.

She is a fucking retard because she is narrowsighted in dangerous ways (like when she said she would sign an EO banning fracking), in this case the wealth cap tax is an idiotic particularly ineffective way to tax the rich.

- First of all, you have to create a big auditing agency independant from the IRS which means hundreds of millions wasted in unproductive bureaucrats.
- Its an easy tax to dodge and to game, fortunes will be spread in 49.99MM between family members, things will be valued to just be below the margin, companies will be re-estructured for this same purpose.
- It incentivizes holding assets offshore, if you are closing to MMit only makes sense to continue any future investments to do them offshore where they can't be audited.
- It is prone to corruption, if the difference between being rated under and over 50MM by an auditor will be worth 300k+ a year, how many auditors do you think would pass on multiple 6 figure bribe offers every year?

It is one of the worst ways to redistribute wealth that I can think of.

On November 03 2019 11:52 Spitfiree wrote: rent control in the US sounds quite reasonable tbh depending on the implementation that being said, its probably gonna be a fiesta implementation which will backfire

Government enforced rent prices naturally causes that people don't invest in construction since renting becomes less profitable but the population keeps growing, so less supply, but more demand = higher prices. but the government has limits set, so what happens when you as owner have 20 people that really want to rent your place? a black market is created where people pay the government price and an extra in cash below the table, that is precisely what happens when rent limits are enforced, it is an atrocious idea that ironically makes renting more expensive, you create a black market and corruption.

If you want to lower the price of rents then you ease off on the permits, zonings and regulations so that building homes is easier and cheaper, higher supply and lower prices.

On November 04 2019 14:22 Loco wrote: Also: obligatory reminder that Baal said that punching Zizek is the equivalent of punching Richard Spencer.

Baal: Punching Spencer is wrong just like punching a commie is wrong
Loco: But Spencer is a public figure, a random commie isnt
Baal: Ok punching a left wing public figure like Zizek is wrong
Loco: LULZ you think Zizek = Spencer
Baal: No, I think political violence is wrong no matter how heinous the ideas you think are.


I've explained this at least 3 times now, you know it very well but you don't care because as you've proven you don't have integrity.

On November 03 2019 17:50 NMcNasty wrote: There probably isn't a better advertisement for Sanders/Warren policies than the movie The Big Short.

The big short is a movie about the exploitation by the financial sector of a poorly thought out and corrupt government intervention in the real state market that guaranteed real state loans, how in the fuck is that a pro Warr/Sanders movie?


I suppose It can look that way to a simpleton who thinks in terms of rich people are doing bad things and Warren/Sanders are promising to eat the rich.

On November 03 2019 11:20 Stroggoz wrote: I mean its so ridiculous how many changes the rich have made over the past 40 years, they've carefully planned an economy with many many policies designed to enrich them, which has resulted in the data your citing. and elizabeth warren comes along with a policy to undo about less than 0.1% of what the rich have done over the neoliberal era, and apparently this makes her a 'fucking retard'. I mean that's the standard bougousie reaction i guess. ive yet to see a single good justification on why anyone should have as much as 50million$ or any number close to that.

when you have a lot of money it's not that you just have money it's that you have assets, you control capital and businesses. for example I'm "worth" $3b but say 50% of that alleged value is stocks in my own company that I can't just turn into liquid money on a dime, 25% is real estate in buildings I can't actually rent because I'm listing them at bubble prices for reasons of financial trickery, etc.

there are lots of $10m $20m houses, $50m could get you half of the most expensive apartment in NYC it's not that much

so for example in the communist utopia, you go to the government and say hello, i'd like hundreds of millions of dollars in loans for this high risk electric car company plus this high risk rocket company. and the state bank says, no. firstly because although you as a rational person think it's a high risk but worth it because of the possible advancement the state not gonna cross the line because it's also too busy spending money on corruption, and secondly because that would compete with the state's own interests, which for example in the case of china involves launching rockets over slums and letting the boosters fall on poor people

the reason you want there to be rich people is you want them to do things you don't want the government to do. you don't want to live in the communist utopia where the public and private sector are merged into literally the exact same power structure. you can't stop elites from existing but you want the adversarial/cooperative system of a capitalist republic where they can check and balance each other and at least in theory mitigate each other's damage. although we've been complacent and dropped the ball recently, that's a phase. like they say the communist revolution is the last one, or something, good luck getting power back after that happens

On November 05 2019 04:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 03 2019 11:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: .. For households worth between $50 million and 1 billion, and higher % for households worth more than a billion. Sounds good to me, imo nobody should have $50 mill and most certainly not 1 billion. It's not just a matter if somebody should have that kind of money or not, if it were just than then I would agree, but its also a matter of understanding that the economy isn't a zero sum game, this person creates thousands of jobs and products, its not a matter of "would you rather give 1billion to Bezos or poor people" its weather if it will be an overall good to society to create a government apparatus dedicated for a wealth cap, it has more ripples than you seem to realize.

I mean this is a valid reason for making it 2-6% rather than 20-60%. I mean, being honest, I'm not an economist, I'm not in the weeds of what % of taxation would genuinely hurt companies' abilities to create jobs, what % makes billionaire flight happen, and I recognize that a lot of value is in assets that aren't necessarily liquid and that forced liquidation of assets for paying of taxes could have adverse effects. But I think the development in how money is allocated that has happened for the past 50 years is completely untenable, it has to stop, and it has to be reversed. Personally I'm a huge fan of the estate tax, but I don't actually want to kill people and Bezos is prolly gonna live for 30+ years, so it'd take too long. I also have the impression that Warren is in the weeds regarding these specific numbers.

What is your suggestion for reversing the trend for the past 50 years of increasing wealth disparity? I mean, you seem to acknowledge that a too high gini coefficient is bad for society. But you also seem to have that notion about government intervention. How do we achieve a more equitable distribution of resources without increased taxes or different types of taxation or some type of intervention?

I've also never seen anything indicating that Bezos with his $109 billion creates more jobs than what 1000 people with $10 million each would have. It's just such a gross amount of money - $10 million is already an absurdly large amount. (For an individual to spend on himself, not for a company obv.) Everybody supports 'small business', but from my perspective that necessitates depowering the walmarts and amazons we have.

On November 05 2019 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean this is a valid reason for making it 2-6% rather than 20-60%. I mean, being honest, I'm not an economist, I'm not in the weeds of what % of taxation would genuinely hurt companies' abilities to create jobs, what % makes billionaire flight happen, and I recognize that a lot of value is in assets that aren't necessarily liquid and that forced liquidation of assets for paying of taxes could have adverse effects. But I think the development in how money is allocated that has happened for the past 50 years is completely untenable, it has to stop, and it has to be reversed. Personally I'm a huge fan of the estate tax, but I don't actually want to kill people and Bezos is prolly gonna live for 30+ years, so it'd take too long. I also have the impression that Warren is in the weeds regarding these specific numbers. What is your suggestion for reversing the trend for the past 50 years of increasing wealth disparity? I mean, you seem to acknowledge that a too high gini coefficient is bad for society. But you also seem to have that notion about government intervention. How do we achieve a more equitable distribution of resources without increased taxes or different types of taxation or some type of intervention? I've also never seen anything indicating that Bezos with his $109 billion creates more jobs than what 1000 people with $10 million each would have. It's just such a gross amount of money - $10 million is already an absurdly large amount. (For an individual to spend on himself, not for a company obv.) Everybody supports 'small business', but from my perspective that necessitates depowering the walmarts and amazons we have.

Indeed there is a taxation % that generates the highest yield for the state and past that there is capital flight, I remember reading about France's taxation, Sarcozi increased taxation past this threashold and the overall yearly tax collection were dropping, so Macron reverses the taxation and gets the yellow-vests riots. Its also important to know that maximum taxation without capitali flight =/= best taxation possible for society.

Liquidations of assets to pay taxes wouldnt be an adverse effect, it would lead to the death of hundreds of thousands, the economy is entwined with life and death of the population, seems obvious but it is very important to keep that in mind, that unemployment % means deaths, that depressions and inflation means death in scales that make all mass shotting in the US combined like a joke.

Warren has been totally opaque about the numbers, she proposed a medicaide for all calculated to cost 52 trillion in a decade, while also planning to demolish the energy sector, this isn't a well thought out plan, she is just pandering like a demagoge, thats is why I think she is either an idiot or a cynic unlike Sanders who I feel is somewhat sincere.

Money is going to the top for sure, why and how do we stop that we can have a long discussion about it, but lets just say for arguments sake that direct wealth redistribution is the way to go, then the way to do it is the one with least bureocratic inefficiency in the collection and the distribution itself, that is UBI and in terms of collection there are a few ways, sales tax works great but it isn't easy to make progressive, the "wealth tax" is the worst way to collect taxes as I explained why.

You are thinking about the economy as a 0 sum game, No bezos doesnt mean his wealth would be split among other rich people or poor or anything, it means a good chunk of it was created out of "think air", a good way to imagine it is a farmer, if you take land and grow vegetables and get rich you didn't get money from anybody, you created new wealth (Ignoring ecological impact), but that is how mostly it works, rentseekers on the other hand do suck out most of their wealth unlike entrepenurs, but yeah I also dont like the idea of a Bezos in this world, people shouldn't have that kind of power, we suck at it, hence my main reason why I dislike the state.

On November 05 2019 04:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 03 2019 11:52 Spitfiree wrote: rent control in the US sounds quite reasonable tbh depending on the implementation that being said, its probably gonna be a fiesta implementation which will backfire Government enforced rent prices naturally causes that people don't invest in construction since renting becomes less profitable but the population keeps growing, so less supply, but more demand = higher prices. but the government has limits set, so what happens when you as owner have 20 people that really want to rent your place? a black market is created where people pay the government price and an extra in cash below the table, that is precisely what happens when rent limits are enforced, it is an atrocious idea that ironically makes renting more expensive, you create a black market and corruption. If you want to lower the price of rents then you ease off on the permits, zonings and regulations so that building homes is easier and cheaper, higher supply and lower prices.

Except thats not how it works in reality. I'd say this is also literally the only thing in communism that worked, you could see how Eastern Europe has the largest % of homeowners in the world in virtually every country because of it. The percentage of homeowners has been decreasing everywhere where capitalism works. More houses doesn't necessarily mean more owners, nor does it mean lower prices.

The problem is you're correct on the creation of a black market, however, and obviously the trade-off with communism is unthinkable. I'd like to see some statistics on what the % of free habitable builds is compared to rent-seekers is. It's not really a straight-forward problem either since urbanization makes it so much more complicated due to location being a main driver for price. It's not that there is lack of houses, its that the available places for buildings is already taken and the 'epicenter' is highly priced while passively increasing the price of every circle around it

permits, zonings and regulations are also really important to maintain forest areas near cities and stuff like that..

On November 05 2019 09:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: permits, zonings and regulations are also really important to maintain forest areas near cities and stuff like that..

i mean that's kinda irrelevant, there probably wouldnt be such things as forrests under anarcho capitalism; perhaps a few small private ones for the ultra rich.

what does the 6% wealth tax mean?
what is she taxing
is that annually?

Oh wait
rofl
are people actually serious about this? Hahaha
You literally force people to pay 6% of net worth above 1Bn ANNUALLY? On top of income tax?
even stuff they have tied in capital stocks, their own companies etc.

Yeah this isn't populist bullshit that will never get passed or enforced at all

I mean ahhaha
Like Apple
Has Revenue of 258Bn
Market cap is 1000bn

If one guy owned it you'd tax him 23% of their revenue ANNUALLY
I mean come on

On November 05 2019 15:20 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Oh wait rofl are people actually serious about this? Hahaha You literally force people to pay 6% of net worth above 1Bn ANNUALLY? On top of income tax? even stuff they have tied in capital stocks, their own companies etc. Yeah this isn't populist bullshit that will never get passed or enforced at all

hey

we have fucking problems US debt $23 trillion debt wage stagnation real estate and stock bubbles soaring income and wealth inequality

if someone is a solvent hundred billionaire just sitting on his ass destroying local businesses.

why shouldn't the public see the proceeds to offset the damage and hoarding?

not talking about murdering the romanovs here

you have any idea how much cash apple has that isn't doing a thing?

made off the back of outsourcing to vietnamese immigrants at $5 an hour or something?

orange man is president and you think populist bullshit will never get passed? what kind of defeatist cynicism is this? you're better than people who want to come up with ideas to improve the world because you're just going to sit in your closet in the czech republic eking out a $500 a month living as a rakeback pro while the world goes on around you?