• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the Economist, "The World Economy, An Open and Shut Case"

Lafayette said:
More's to the point, Why should they be ... ?
Click to expand...

Lafayette said:
I've answered that question. You just skim over responses?
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the point.

The reason for that, is so that capitalists have something other than a work ethic from the Age of Iron to "cheapen" by leaving the First World for the Third World.

Ceteris paribus; if wages are excised to parity, what real excuse would capital use to flee the US.
 
SOCIETAL PARADIGM

danielpalos said:
I guess you missed the point.

The reason for that, is so that capitalists have something other than a work ethic from the Age of Iron to "cheapen" by leaving the First World for the Third World.

Ceteris paribus; if wages are excised to parity, what real excuse would capital use to flee the US.
Click to expand...

Taxes are excised to parity in no country on earth, except perhaps North Korea.

And I think you don't understand "capitalism". It is not a "belief", like Socialism, but a market-economy "mechanism". First, its definition: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Are both the US and Europe capitalist nations, that is, is ownership in the hands of private owners for profit. Yes, for the most part - though Europe has had in the past sizable parts of the economy under public control.

Given that statement, if a people vote into office a political party that reduces taxation of upper-income groups (at a flat-tax rate of 20%*), a factor that very heavily shifts large amounts of Income into Wealth - thus bringing about both Income and Wealth Disparity, then that is a democratic choice made by a country's government.

Just as would be a people who vote into office a political party that institutes much higher taxation rates to assure a more fair and equitable distribution of Wealth.

The choice is made at the ballot-box - and in that respect it is a fundamentally democratic choice of the electorate to make.

America has had its present tax-rate structure ever since Congress voted tax-rates as they are today in the early 1980s. We have in the US therefore, now 35 years onward, Grossly Unfair Income & Wealth Distribution.

This has been corroborated by two studies:
*Piketty's of historical income, where 10Percenters obtain nearly half of all Income generated:
Income - Piketty History, 10Percenters.jpg, which feeds directly into

*This study of Net Worth (Weath minus Taxes) Distribution from WikiP sources noted in the infographic:
Distribution of US Net Worth.jpg

Now if you want to subscribe to the fact that Upper-income Taxation is WHOLLY INADEQUATE and does not bring equitability, then we have grounds for agreement. Othewise Income Equality (and thus Wealth Equality) is just not on as a Societal Paradigm ...

*See here:
Taxation - Tax Foundation Upper-Income Taxation.jpg
 
Last edited:
Typo: Taxes are excised to parity in no country on earth, except perhaps North Korea.
Should read: Wages are excised to parity in no country on earth, except perhaps North Korea.

On this morning's news here in France, there's an article on The "Town of Mao", that was taken from a BBC program: Nanjiecun: A village that still lives and works as Mao laid down
 
Lafayette said:
SOCIETAL PARADIGM

Taxes are excised to parity in no country on earth, except perhaps North Korea.

And I think you don't understand "capitalism". It is not a "belief", like Socialism, but a market-economy "mechanism". First, its definition: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Are both the US and Europe capitalist nations, that is, is ownership in the hands of private owners for profit. Yes, for the most part - though Europe has had in the past sizable parts of the economy under public control.

Given that statement, if a people vote into office a political party that reduces taxation of upper-income groups (at a flat-tax rate of 20%*), a factor that very heavily shifts large amounts of Income into Wealth - thus bringing about both Income and Wealth Disparity, then that is a democratic choice made by a country's government.

Just as would be a people who vote into office a political party that institutes much higher taxation rates to assure a more fair and equitable distribution of Wealth.

The choice is made at the ballot-box - and in that respect it is a fundamentally democratic choice of the electorate to make.

America has had its present tax-rate structure ever since Congress voted tax-rates as they are today in the early 1980s. We have in the US therefore, now 35 years onward, Grossly Unfair Income & Wealth Distribution.

This has been corroborated by two studies:
*Piketty's of historical income, where 10Percenters obtain nearly half of all Income generated:
View attachment 67209372, which feeds directly into

*This study of Net Worth (Weath minus Taxes) Distribution from WikiP sources noted in the infographic:
View attachment 67209374

Now if you want to subscribe to the fact that Upper-income Taxation is WHOLLY INADEQUATE and does not bring equitability, then we have grounds for agreement. Othewise Income Equality (and thus Wealth Equality) is just not on as a Societal Paradigm ...

*See here:
View attachment 67209375
Click to expand...

Yet, we have a Capital gains preference; as affirmative action for those with capital; but no parity for US firms leaving for cheaper wages instead of better location for production, regardless of wages.

North Korea doesn't even that, yet.
 
Lafayette said:
The above is really quite naive.

Despite the fact that the Bush Administration let the Replicant Plutocrats into the Halls of Power in LaLaLand on the Potomac, and that the Supremes have highly favored their cause, there has not been that much manipulation going on under Obama. The Replicants are all business, business, business - because that generates their wealth. (And, as I keep harping, present upper-income taxation favors the Income-to-Wealth pump that exists today.)

We can do something about that unfair Wealth Pump (by which 20% of Americans own 80% of the nation's wealth), but we have to get off our backsides and assure that the HofR gets back into Dem-hands - which is far more effective than bitching-in-a-blog.

It seems that aint-gonna-happin' this election, because we are so infatuated by the Hillary-Dork battle going on.

Over emails! Goodness what a bunch of children we are ...
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Since Obama took office (and, btw, I have no love for either party - they are both worse than useless imo) his administration/the Fed has done the following (just to name a few):

- although it was a Bush initiative, TARP was carried out by/under (and had the support of) Obama. The same with the auto bailouts. These policies benefited the rich MASSIVELY and did little for the poor/middle class.

- the Fed has 'printed' many trillions of dollars with the principle purpose (by their own admission) of propping up the stock market. This clearly helps major shareholders/corporations and CEO's far more then the middle class and does virtually nothing for the poor.

- the Fed's zero interest rate policy (approved of by Obama) has - again by the Fed's own recent admission - actually hurt those on fixed incomes and who live on their savings. Again, helping the rich at the expense of the poor/middle class.

- Obama changed the 'Mark-to-Market' rules on banking which ONLY helped the banks...it did nothing for the 'common' man/woman.

- the number of people on food stamps since Obama took office has skyrocketed.

- the home ownership rate has fallen so far under Obama it is now tied for the lowest rate on record.

- the employment to population ratio (far more accurate than the U-3 unemployment rate) of 25-54's (the heart of the economy) is lower now than when Obama was first elected to office

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

- plus the national debt is massively higher now than when Obama took office


NONE of these facts have helped the masses and most of them have helped the rich TREMENDOUSLY.

No offense, but it is you who are naive if you honestly think that Obama, Bush, the Dems or the Reps actually are working for the masses and not working to line their and their rich supporters pockets. The government IS the rich.

Even Bernie Sanders has admitted time and time again that government is corrupt...VERY corrupt.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
Yet, we have a Capital gains preference; as affirmative action for those with capital; but no parity for US firms leaving for cheaper wages instead of better location for production, regardless of wages.
Click to expand...

This statement is the epitome of illogic ..
 
DA60 said:
Are you serious?

Since Obama took office (and, btw, I have no love for either party - they are both worse than useless imo) his administration/the Fed has done the following (just to name a few):

- although it was a Bush initiative, TARP was carried out by/under (and had the support of) Obama. The same with the auto bailouts. These policies benefited the rich MASSIVELY and did little for the poor/middle class.

- the Fed has 'printed' many trillions of dollars with the principle purpose (by their own admission) of propping up the stock market. This clearly helps major shareholders/corporations and CEO's far more then the middle class and does virtually nothing for the poor.

- the Fed's zero interest rate policy (approved of by Obama) has - again by the Fed's own recent admission - actually hurt those on fixed incomes and who live on their savings. Again, helping the rich at the expense of the poor/middle class.

- Obama changed the 'Mark-to-Market' rules on banking which ONLY helped the banks...it did nothing for the 'common' man/woman.

- the number of people on food stamps since Obama took office has skyrocketed.

- the home ownership rate has fallen so far under Obama it is now tied for the lowest rate on record.

- the employment to population ratio (far more accurate than the U-3 unemployment rate) of 25-54's (the heart of the economy) is lower now than when Obama was first elected to office

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

- plus the national debt is massively higher now than when Obama took office


NONE of these facts have helped the masses and most of them have helped the rich TREMENDOUSLY.

No offense, but it is you who are naive if you honestly think that Obama, Bush, the Dems or the Reps actually are working for the masses and not working to line their and their rich supporters pockets. The government IS the rich.

Even Bernie Sanders has admitted time and time again that government is corrupt...VERY corrupt.
Click to expand...

Hint: When responding to a argument, copy only that part of the argument to which you are responding.

What you write makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Lafayette said:
This statement is the epitome of illogic ..
Click to expand...

Why do you believe it is? Just because You want to appeal to ignorance instead of a valid argument.

we have a Capital gains preference as affirmative action for those with capital; but no parity for US Labor from US firms leaving for cheaper wages instead of better location for production, regardless of wages.
 
danielpalos said:
Why do you believe it is? Just because You want to appeal to ignorance instead of a valid argument.

we have a Capital gains preference as affirmative action for those with capital; but no parity for US Labor from US firms leaving for cheaper wages instead of better location for production, regardless of wages.
Click to expand...

What in heaven's makes you think anyone has a "right" to reparation for jobs lost to competition from abroad?

Where is that written in human law anywhere on earth?

The notion itself is beserk. Get a hold of yourself ... in a competitive world each individual is worthy of prevention from human misery caused by conditions internal to the country. The human condition of abject poverty below the Poverty Threshold in America (only part of which is due to lost jobs that fled to lower cost nations) is a problem for America to resolve.

Not some quirky international agreement that might allow reparation for a condition that is not even the fault of international competition.

The World Trade Organization in Geneva exists to oversee the faults of world trade by means of unfair competition. Take your notion there and see for yourself the treatment you get ...
 
Lafayette said:
What in heaven's makes you think anyone has a "right" to reparation for jobs lost to competition from abroad?

Where is that written in human law anywhere on earth?

The notion itself is beserk. Get a hold of yourself ... in a competitive world each individual is worthy of prevention from human misery caused by conditions internal to the country. The human condition of abject poverty below the Poverty Threshold in America (only part of which is due to lost jobs that fled to lower cost nations) is a problem for America to resolve.

Not some quirky international agreement that might allow reparation for a condition that is not even the fault of international competition.

The World Trade Organization in Geneva exists to oversee the faults of world trade by means of unfair competition. Take your notion there and see for yourself the treatment you get ...
Click to expand...

Because, I don't believe the fantastical right wing should be whining about the cost of social services, by not socializing the cost difference for wages. Especially, if the Only reason Firms leave the US, is for lower wages instead of better products, location, ex cetera. Why do some insist on "buying American".

Why complain about an illegal problem as well, if you don't want to make money. We could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis, through Commerce, well regulated, instead of the coercive use of force of the State. Is Capitalism, really just useless to the right.

The wealthiest can make all the profit they want, once we solve simple poverty in our republic.
 
danielpalos said:
Because, I don't believe the fantastical right wing should be whining about the cost of social services, by not socializing the cost difference for wages. Especially, if the Only reason Firms leave the US, is for lower wages instead of better products, location, ex cetera. Why do some insist on "buying American".

Why complain about an illegal problem as well, if you don't want to make money. We could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis, through Commerce, well regulated, instead of the coercive use of force of the State. Is Capitalism, really just useless to the right.

The wealthiest can make all the profit they want, once we solve simple poverty in our republic.
Click to expand...

You are correct in an ethical sense. Unfortunately, trade has no room for ethics.

Trade only has room for the remedies to unfairness as stipulated and signed by countries at the World Trade Organization. It is in this sense and this sense alone that trade is "regulated" ...
 
Lafayette said:
Hint: When responding to a argument, copy only that part of the argument to which you are responding.

What you write makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense..I highlighted the part I was referring to - which was the following:

Despite the fact that the Bush Administration let the Replicant Plutocrats into the Halls of Power in LaLaLand on the Potomac, and that the Supremes have highly favored their cause, there has not been that much manipulation going on under Obama.

When you highlight only a portion of a post you are quoting, that means your reply is in reference specifically to that highlighted part.


Now...do you have a response to the facts I listed that (imo) show that there has indeed been much manipulation of the economy for the wealthy since Obama took office?
 
Lafayette said:
You are correct in an ethical sense. Unfortunately, trade has no room for ethics.

Trade only has room for the remedies to unfairness as stipulated and signed by countries at the World Trade Organization. It is in this sense and this sense alone that trade is "regulated" ...
Click to expand...

to regulate commerce, really is a Job description for our legislators.
 
DA60 said:
It makes perfect sense..I highlighted the part I was referring to - which was the following:

Despite the fact that the Bush Administration let the Replicant Plutocrats into the Halls of Power in LaLaLand on the Potomac, and that the Supremes have highly favored their cause, there has not been that much manipulation going on under Obama.

When you highlight only a portion of a post you are quoting, that means your reply is in reference specifically to that highlighted part.


Now...do you have a response to the facts I listed that (imo) show that there has indeed been much manipulation of the economy for the wealthy since Obama took office?
Click to expand...

My response is this. Obama had been handed on a silver-platter the SubPrime Mess, which had almost gutted Wall Street.

Now, had he not done what was necessary to save Wall Street, it is entirely possible that unemployment would have skyrocketed to proportions unseen ever in the US. That would have sunk his presidency.

So, he did what was necessary - repair the damages. There were a series of responses by Obama to the SubPrime Mess. They are explained here: Regulatory Responses to the SubPrime Crisis

For reasons that Obama has not yet divulged, his head at the Dept. of Justice did not actively pursue in court those chiefly responsible (at the banks) for the mess. They are the ones that had officiated when banks were dealing on Wall Street with Toxic Waste that they were knowingly selling to the world. But proving that allegation in a court of law is altogether a different matter.

To my mind, some at least should have gone to jail - but where is there a law that they contravened? That is far less sure.

There is one now, but it's way too late to put anyone in jail. The damage is done, and the US has moved on ...
 
danielpalos said:
to regulate commerce, really is a Job description for our legislators.
Click to expand...

There is very little that can be done in terms of International Law. There are international courts of law, and a few of them the US refuses to recognize their legitimacy ...
 
danielpalos said:
has nothing to do with Regulating commerce, just like our Tax codes.
Click to expand...

Your confusing everything.

You rant about how jobs shipped overseas are unfair, but say any reparation has nothing to do with commerce.

Put your head on straight, will you ... ?!?
 
Lafayette said:
Your confusing everything.

You rant about how jobs shipped overseas are unfair, but say any reparation has nothing to do with commerce.

Put your head on straight, will you ... ?!?
Click to expand...

both of those really do operate in a vacuum of special pleading; you just need a clue and a Cause.
 
danielpalos said:
both of those really do operate in a vacuum of special pleading; you just need a clue and a Cause.
Click to expand...

Stop kidding yourself.

Where do you live? On what planet? What legal system ... ?
 
Lafayette said:
My response is this. Obama had been handed on a silver-platter the SubPrime Mess, which had almost gutted Wall Street.

Now, had he not done what was necessary to save Wall Street, it is entirely possible that unemployment would have skyrocketed to proportions unseen ever in the US. That would have sunk his presidency.

So, he did what was necessary - repair the damages. There were a series of responses by Obama to the SubPrime Mess. They are explained here: Regulatory Responses to the SubPrime Crisis

For reasons that Obama has not yet divulged, his head at the Dept. of Justice did not actively pursue in court those chiefly responsible (at the banks) for the mess. They are the ones that had officiated when banks were dealing on Wall Street with Toxic Waste that they were knowingly selling to the world. But proving that allegation in a court of law is altogether a different matter.

To my mind, some at least should have gone to jail - but where is there a law that they contravened? That is far less sure.

There is one now, but it's way too late to put anyone in jail. The damage is done, and the US has moved on ...
Click to expand...

And where is your link to unbiased factual proof that had Obama not done what he did (which was MASSIVELY bail out banks and corporations at the expense of the 'little guy/gal') that Wall Street would have collapsed and unemployment would have skyrocketed?

Almost every recession/depression in American history ended all by themselves with minimum government assistance. The 1920/21 Depression (which was FAR worse than the Great Recession) ended in 3 1/2 years with the government cutting tax rates and balancing the budget - so the notion that the government has to intervene in economic downturns to fix them has been proven time and again throughout history as false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21

Plus, your excuse has been used by Wall Street itself. They are the ones who cried loudest that the economy would collapse without handouts - yet it was they who benefitted the most from those handouts. You are simply echoing the words of the rich elite who benefitted from those handouts.


I ask again - where is your link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF that had the economy simply been left to fix itself that it would not have done just that - as it had during almost every economic downturn in American history?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
And where is your link to unbiased factual proof that had Obama not done what he did (which was MASSIVELY bail out banks and corporations at the expense of the 'little guy/gal') that Wall Street would have collapsed and unemployment would have skyrocketed?
Click to expand...

If you cannot accept that fact, there is no reason to pursue this discussion. (Do you live on the moon?)

Over and out ...
 
Lafayette said:
If you cannot accept that fact, there is no reason to pursue this discussion. (Do you live on the moon?)

Over and out ...
Click to expand...

What fact?

You said so yourself 'entirely possible'. That does not denote a fact, that denotes a belief.

And it is factually IMPOSSIBLE to know how something will turn out under different circumstances. So there is no way you can know for certain what would have happened.

So you cannot logically call your assumptions/beliefs a 'fact'.

Thusly, you cannot present ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that the economy would not have corrected itself just fine without government/Fed interference. Noted.


Personally, I think you just are not prepared to accept the possibility that what Obama did he might have done for his rich buddies and not for working class Americans.

And, I will again remind you, that Bernie Sanders called the government EXTREMELY corrupt time and time again.
 
DA60 said:
What fact?

You said so yourself 'entirely possible'. That does not denote a fact, that denotes a belief.

And it is factually IMPOSSIBLE to know how something will turn out under different circumstances. So there is no way you can know for certain what would have happened.

So you cannot logically call your assumptions/beliefs a 'fact'.

Thusly, you cannot present ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that the economy would not have corrected itself just fine without government/Fed interference. Noted.


Personally, I think you just are not prepared to accept the possibility that what Obama did he might have done for his rich buddies and not for working class Americans.

And, I will again remind you, that Bernie Sanders called the government EXTREMELY corrupt time and time again.
Click to expand...

Borrrinnnnggggggggggg!
 
Lafayette said:
Borrrinnnnggggggggggg!
Click to expand...

You are not a big 'fact' guy - are you?

And still you can present no links to unbiased, factual proof that had the economy been left to it's own devices that it would not have recovered just fine.

Thus your assertions are baseless in fact.

Noted.

Hey, if you want to take the word of Wall Street CEO's and ignore the fact that what Obama/the Fed has done has hurt many average Americans and hugely helped rich Americans...go ahead.


I guess we are done here.

Have a nice day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom