Election Thread 2016

[Yoshi]

One could just as easily argue that this vulnerability is a result of an increasingly speculation-driven economy. There is a difference between investment and the kind of speculation that people get rich from these which is little more than gambling and doesn't add value to the economy. You get this worldwide, where Europe and the US are both spooking each other's markets and not as a result of declining revenues. It's because people aren't actually invested in anything.

I agree with that. At least in most cases there is real money at stake. Buying on the margin and selling short really irritates me.

And just for shits, the country who is fast growing, who we're borrowing money from, and who we're all scared of is fucking China. An actually socialist country (or closer to it than the countries people call socialist in Europe because they have universal healthcare). Not that I think for a second China should be the model, but they make it very obvious that these ideas are not incompatible with economic growth. However libertarian free market shit might be.

China has tons and tons of unsold consumer goods stinking up their warehouses. They're going to have to liquidate them in the near future, which will not only have massive consequences on them but everyone else. China is the sovereign equivalent of the housing bubble, except they've artificially deflated prices instead of increasing them. And they're going to pop in the not too distant future.

When I say increased taxes on the wealthy, I mean proportionally not exclusively. There is a need to balance our budget. Like fucking NOW. And we need a tax base to do that without displacing more workers than we can afford to at this point.

The first step to balancing any budget is to significantly reel in spending. Other than closing loop holes, additional taxes can fuck off until Washington proves it can exercise some control on itself. We don't need them to figure a way to overrun larger budgets.

[Yoshi]

environmental stuff is pretty low priority for me.

You really are the political anti-Christ.

[Yoshi]

It is somewhat shocking to me that anyone can, in light of our recent history, still believe that an unregulated free market will do what's best for business. It almost seems to stem from a belief that corporations are actually people, protected by their self interest.

It's obvious now that many people will exploit an unregulated free market for personal gain, at the expense of their company. And that even after the crash continue to wheel and deal in high-risk derivatives because they will never be personally financially accountable if things fail.

There has to be means of discouraging that kind of behavior. That's what regulation is for.

That's painting with way, way too broad of strokes. First of all, any regulation by definition hits small business at least as hard as the small minority of corporations you're talking about. There is no question that there are corrupt assholes running some corporations, but I think you're overestimating the number. And killing small business is only going to make the problem worse, because when the alternatives are all gone, then nothing will slow the corrupt, no matter how much red tape you throw up. Business is always, always smarter than government at a macro level.

[icarusfall]

Tell me more about how policy affects small business.

You constantly talk about "skin in the game" and yet you really have none.

This is all just an intellectual exercise for you.

[Frogacuda]

The first step to balancing any budget is to significantly reel in spending. Other than closing loop holes, additional taxes can fuck off until Washington proves it can exercise some control on itself. We don't need them to figure a way to overrun larger budgets.

If your business is failing, downsizing is not likely to get you out of it. When companies have a bad quarter they cut what isn't working, but they also double down on advertising and R&D and try to make something work.

While we should be going over the budget with a fine toothed comb and cutting what is truly wasteful (I would suggest that a lot of money could be saved by limiting what we pay the private sector for government services, including paying less for medication costs and government military contractors, for example. There are trillions of dollars we just hand away), I think we should be very careful about cutting government jobs and entitlement programs until after we shore up the economy.

There is a time and a place to cut those things, but it needs to be when the private sector has a demand for labor so these people aren't just displaced.

First of all, any regulation by definition hits small business at least as hard as the small minority of corporations you're talking about.

This is simply not true. If you regulate the sort of indiscretions I'm describing about CEO pay, about the sale of derivatives, about exporting jobs overseas... these things don't really affect small businesses in the way they do large. To say they do "by definition" is absurd.

There is no question that there are corrupt assholes running some corporations, but I think you're overestimating the number.

I'm really not, though. The AVERAGE CEO now makes 10 times what he did relative to his workers compared to just 20 years ago. This is because we have a system where CEOs can set their own salaries regardless of the wishes of the board. It isn't like that in the rest of the world, and that's why this is a problem plaguing American business, and it's incredibly pervasive, particularly as you start to look at larger companies.

Would fixing that hurt small business? Hell, would it hurt large business? How? When is it ok to say "Fuck these greedy cunts, they shouldn't be allowed to do that?" Is there any limit?

You really are the political anti-Christ.

To be clear on that, I'm in favor of legislation to protect the environment, but I'd gladly elect someone who wasn't if I could find a candidate with sensible economic policy and a firm commitment to civil rights.

[Drewbacca]

And just for shits, the country who is fast growing, who we're borrowing money from, and who we're all scared of is fucking China. An actually socialist country (or closer to it than the countries people call socialist in Europe because they have universal healthcare). Not that I think for a second China should be the model, but they make it very obvious that these ideas are not incompatible with economic growth. However libertarian free market shit might be.

A controlled market economy growing faster than a free market economy is a no brainer. It also stifles general innovation, which is something the Chinese are having trouble with doing. They can make anything to spec, but if they have to create something that isn't yet a schematic they have trouble. They usually just end up copying something that exists already.

There is a very real difference between crony capitalism and capitalism (and crony communism and ideal communism). In one you own your own labour and opportunity. In the other you don't.

[Frogacuda]

I'm not actually advocating imitating the Chinese system, I'm just pointing out that having a government doesn't mean you can't have economic growth.

I said earlier that competition is the core value that drives economic growth, and that either extreme laissez faire libertarian capitalism or socialism are antithetical to that end. The idea is to find that equilibrium where big business can exist alongside small business, and where the economically disadvantaged but talented can compete with the children of privilege. If we fix that, we fix a lot of other problems by proxy.

[Yoshi]

Tell me more about how policy affects small business.

You constantly talk about "skin in the game" and yet you really have none.

This is all just an intellectual exercise for you.

Anyone who pays taxes has skin in the game. Anyone who doesn't doesn't. You could certainly argue that you have more or a different kind than I do, since you own a business and other people's livelihoods depend on you.

[Diff-chan]

I
China has tons and tons of unsold consumer goods stinking up their warehouses. They're going to have to liquidate them in the near future, which will not only have massive consequences on them but everyone else. China is the sovereign equivalent of the housing bubble, except they've artificially deflated prices instead of increasing them. And they're going to pop in the not too distant future.

I've been hearing for years from our elites that natural gas is the way forward for the US and we need to poison all our groundwater to get it out of the ground.

Well now we got too much of the stuff lying around and prices have bottomed out. Companies are shutting down production and with it those "good jobs" they were promising. We're not that much better than anyone else.

[Yoshi]

If your business is failing, downsizing is not likely to get you out of it. When companies have a bad quarter they cut what isn't working, but they also double down on advertising and R&D and try to make something work.

While we should be going over the budget with a fine toothed comb and cutting what is truly wasteful (I would suggest that a lot of money could be saved by limiting what we pay the private sector for government services, including paying less for medication costs and government military contractors, for example. There are trillions of dollars we just hand away), I think we should be very careful about cutting government jobs and entitlement programs until after we shore up the economy.

There is a time and a place to cut those things, but it needs to be when the private sector has a demand for labor so these people aren't just displaced.

Raising taxes on business is the government equivalent of downsizing while struggling. Just the possibility of it has made companies uneasy about investing. I understand your point about making sure we don't whack jobs when there is nowhere for those people to land, but the government's job isn't full employment. It's to allow the private sector to approach full employment, though clearly not through overpaying for services, as you said. It has to be through growth, which isn't likely to occur during uncertainty like this financial cliff irresponsibility.

This is simply not true. If you regulate the sort of indiscretions I'm describing about CEO pay, about the sale of derivatives, about exporting jobs overseas... these things don't really affect small businesses in the way they do large. To say they do "by definition" is absurd.

I was referring to regulations at a macro level. Of course if you pick and choose you won't necessarily hit small businesses. You'll just make us noncompetitive on the global market if you do things like tax outsourcing. All you'll wind up doing is making companies move the higher paying jobs to follow the lower paying ones or cut benefits in order to offset the taxes, because the alternative is to go out of business.

I'm really not, though. The AVERAGE CEO now makes 10 times what he did relative to his workers compared to just 20 years ago. This is because we have a system where CEOs can set their own salaries regardless of the wishes of the board. It isn't like that in the rest of the world, and that's why this is a problem plaguing American business, and it's incredibly pervasive, particularly as you start to look at larger companies.

Who cares about averages? You and I both know that's skewed phenomenally by a very small minority at the top.

Would fixing that hurt small business? Hell, would it hurt large business? How? When is it ok to say "Fuck these greedy cunts, they shouldn't be allowed to do that?" Is there any limit?

It seems like a very slippery slope to me. I understand what you're trying to do, but it's a form of price fixing. Where do you stop? There shouldn't even be a minimum wage, let alone a maximum one.

To be clear on that, I'm in favor of legislation to protect the environment, but I'd gladly elect someone who wasn't if I could find a candidate with sensible economic policy and a firm commitment to civil rights.

Protecting endangered species is far, far more important than the special rights that get rhetorically called civil rights these days. If we want to dedicate resources to civil rights, let's protect citizens' right to vote by checking IDs to make sure non-citizens aren't voting and that no one is voting twice or after they're dead.