• 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!

Real Wealth is Decreasing

James972 said:
for 5th time: can the scared liberal tell us the 5 companies that are engaging in "monopolistic" competition??
Click to expand...

Again, your failure to grasp the subject matter is on full display. Review the terminology, and come back some other time.
 
jonny5 said:
And yet they do it, so its not wasteful.
Click to expand...

This is a tautology. It is wasteful unless one of your roads is at full capacity. If you have a real argument as to why that's not the case, then please explain it.

Which is why we have hundreds of roads between the two same places. Some roads are better than others.
Click to expand...

What we generally have our old roads that aren't up to today's standards and are no longer really maintained, and then an interstate. There aren't multiple interstates between places unless there's a real need for it.
 
phattonez said:
This is a tautology. It is wasteful unless one of your roads is at full capacity. If you have a real argument as to why that's not the case, then please explain it.



What we generally have our old roads that aren't up to today's standards and are no longer really maintained, and then an interstate. There aren't multiple interstates between places unless there's a real need for it.
Click to expand...

Its actually ipso facto. And in fact in Florida we have interstates and toll roads and states roads, all with different levels of value, that all go to the same place. The interstate literally parallels the toll road in some places. Most people use the interstate because its 'free'. Many people use the toll road because its better maintained.
 
jonny5 said:
Its actually ipso facto. And in fact in Florida we have interstates and toll roads and states roads, all with different levels of value, that all go to the same place. The interstate literally parallels the toll road in some places. Most people use the interstate because its 'free'. Many people use the toll road because its better maintained.
Click to expand...

And how is pointing out the existence of a state of affairs evidence that it is not wasteful? The pyramids also exist. Are you telling me that those weren't wasteful?
 
Kushinator said:
Again, your failure to grasp the subject matter is on full display. Review the terminology, and come back some other time.
Click to expand...

for 6th time: can the scared liberal tell us the 5 companies that are engaging in "monopolistic" competition??
 
James972 said:
for 6th time: can the scared liberal tell us the 5 companies that are engaging in "monopolistic" competition??
Click to expand...

Are you just not very intelligent? How about you start with the meaning of monopolistic competition. Read the wikipedia page, and then come back and tell us what you've learned and why your comment "tell us the five companies..." stemmed from your lack of knowledge.
 
phattonez said:
Corporations today are largely pump and dump schemes.
.
Click to expand...

in fact they supply 86% of the jobs and products we need to live at the highest standard of living in human history! They spent $24 billion on cancer research last year! They are Gods
 
phattonez said:
I found this nifty chart showing household wealth by year and income group. Take a look.

your-guide-to-class-warfare-in-2015-213-body-image-1423865082.jpg


For almost all households, real wealth levels are about the same as they were in the early 1980s. But here's the downside: the cost of living is far higher than it was in the 1980s. Home prices have grown much faster than inflation, and that's the biggest expense for households (and also, ironically, the biggest source of wealth for most non-wealthy households).

What does this mean? Households are actually poorer today than they were in the 1980s, possibly even further back if you include the real cost of living.

Why is it that I'm called a Communist for pointing this out? Clearly something is broken. Ignoring this won't fix it. So what's your solution?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

This will vary from state to state, but in a state like NJ for example the total tax burden has gone up substantially from where it was in the 1980's and has also significantly outpaced wage growth. Regarding the cost of living I would love to know how much excessive regulations have driven up those costs? Regarding solutions, on a personal and practical level don't have kids you can't afford. Unfortunately in today's world a child has become a tremendous economic burden. When you factor in childcare, food, healthcare, extra utilities costs it is well over $10,000.
 
Cynical said:
This will vary from state to state, but in a state like NJ for example the total tax burden has gone up substantially from where it was in the 1980's and has also significantly outpaced wage growth. Regarding the cost of living I would love to know how much excessive regulations have driven up those costs?
Click to expand...

Home prices aren't a function of regulations. They're dependent on land values. The cost of building a home hasn't changed substantially. What's changed is the value of the land that the home sits on. When landlords can demand 50% or more of median incomes on rent, then your land values are going to skyrocket.

How do we fix this? We make primary home ownership cheaper and more widespread. Increase taxes on rental income so that landlords yields go down and their asset (homes) also go down in price.

Regarding solutions, on a personal and practical level don't have kids you can't afford. Unfortunately in today's world a child has become a tremendous economic burden. When you factor in childcare, food, healthcare, extra utilities costs it is well over $10,000.
Click to expand...

I hear this solution all the time from conservatives, and frankly it's enraging. Starting a family and having children is far more important than accumulating wealth and having a career. Instead of telling people to neglect this primary biological urge, we should be making it easier to start a family and raise children. Conservatives have thrown out this advice for decades now, and it's resulted in more out of wedlock childbirth and the associated social consequences, because ultimately while people will delay marriage, they still have babies.

As Chesterton states:

G.K. Chesterton said:
A little while ago certain doctors and other persons permitted by modern law to dictate to their shabbier fellow-citizens, sent out an order that all little girls should have their hair cut short. I mean, of course, all little girls whose parents were poor. Many very unhealthy habits are common among rich little girls, but it will be long before any doctors interfere forcibly with them. Now, the case for this particular interference was this, that the poor are pressed down from above into such stinking and suffocating underworlds of squalor, that poor people must not be allowed to have hair, because in their case it must mean lice in the hair. Therefore, the doctors propose to abolish the hair. It never seems to have occurred to them to abolish the lice. Yet it could be done.
Click to expand...

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Cynical said:
This will vary from state to state, but in a state like NJ for example the total tax burden has gone up substantially from where it was in the 1980's and has also significantly outpaced wage growth. Regarding the cost of living I would love to know how much excessive regulations have driven up those costs? Regarding solutions, on a personal and practical level don't have kids you can't afford. Unfortunately in today's world a child has become a tremendous economic burden. When you factor in childcare, food, healthcare, extra utilities costs it is well over $10,000.
Click to expand...

and its all gotten a lot cheaper in China where wages have been skyrocketing since liberals sent our jobs there with their taxes unions regulations deficits and trade deals.
 
phattonez said:
And how is pointing out the existence of a state of affairs evidence that it is not wasteful? The pyramids also exist. Are you telling me that those weren't wasteful?
Click to expand...

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not.
 
phattonez said:
I found this nifty chart showing household wealth by year and income group. Take a look.

your-guide-to-class-warfare-in-2015-213-body-image-1423865082.jpg


For almost all households, real wealth levels are about the same as they were in the early 1980s. But here's the downside: the cost of living is far higher than it was in the 1980s. Home prices have grown much faster than inflation, and that's the biggest expense for households (and also, ironically, the biggest source of wealth for most non-wealthy households).

What does this mean? Households are actually poorer today than they were in the 1980s, possibly even further back if you include the real cost of living.

Why is it that I'm called a Communist for pointing this out? Clearly something is broken. Ignoring this won't fix it. So what's your solution?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons is that the amount of debt one held in 1980 was far smaller then what is being held today by the average person. In 1980, the only real debt anyone had was a mortgage and a car payment. Credit cards were not that common and even if you had one, the credit limits were very low. During the 80s, credit expanded to the point where credit cards were sent in the mail to anyone that was over 18, we used to get them constantly. I remember them coming from Iowa mostly but then it just went crazy in the 90s. Today, interest represents a larger portion of our expenses then it ever was prior to the explosion of available credit. Lastly, there was no such thing as a second mortgage back then unless I am mistaken. Student loans were cheap as well. I got two BEOG loans in the late 70s and early 80s. Interest was 2% even though the prime was over 15 and inflation was very high. So ask yourself how we got from there to here. Today, student loans start at 7-8%, cannot be forgiven yet the prime has been around zero for a long time. You know why this happened? Because banks and Wall Street found yet another way to fleece every single one of us and we went along like good little sheep to the shearing house.
 
James972 said:
can you say why you approve or disapprove of fractional reserve banking?
Click to expand...

At the very heart of fractional reserve banking is the interest of the bank itself. This is the central flaw in this system, it divorces any responsibility for the greater economy from the creator of money. It also introduces massive interest payments that all go to a bank. Now on the flip side, it does expand the money supply in a fairly efficient manner which solves some of the problems with the old gold and silver backed systems. Since the world is stuck with fiat money, it is paramount that governments control these activities so that lending practices further a greater good then just the income statements of bankers. What this video shows is that money itself is someones debt, that is how we introduce money into the system. Since money is a function of government, governments back money, taking the power to create money from any government introduces the risk of banks controlling the entire economy. If banks control the economy by putting everyone into debt, you end up with an economy that can never repay its debts which is exactly how we got to 22 trillion in debt at the federal level and even more on a personal level.
 
Vadinho said:
One of the reasons is that the amount of debt one held in 1980 was far smaller then what is being held today by the average person. In 1980, the only real debt anyone had was a mortgage and a car payment. Credit cards were not that common and even if you had one, the credit limits were very low. During the 80s, credit expanded to the point where credit cards were sent in the mail to anyone that was over 18, we used to get them constantly. I remember them coming from Iowa mostly but then it just went crazy in the 90s. Today, interest represents a larger portion of our expenses then it ever was prior to the explosion of available credit. Lastly, there was no such thing as a second mortgage back then unless I am mistaken. Student loans were cheap as well. I got two BEOG loans in the late 70s and early 80s. Interest was 2% even though the prime was over 15 and inflation was very high. So ask yourself how we got from there to here. Today, student loans start at 7-8%, cannot be forgiven yet the prime has been around zero for a long time. You know why this happened? Because banks and Wall Street found yet another way to fleece every single one of us and we went along like good little sheep to the shearing house.
Click to expand...

Because banks own our government.
 
Vadinho said:
Republicans are like religion. They create the problem and charge you for the solution.
Click to expand...

just more liberal goofing or can you present your best example of this??? Liberal afraid to try??
 
Vadinho said:
At the very heart of fractional reserve banking is the interest of the bank itself. This is the central flaw in this system, it divorces any responsibility for the greater economy from the creator of money.
Click to expand...

businesses create money to loan if they loan successfully the economy thrives. If they loan unsuccessfully like in recent housing crisis economy collapses. Now do you understand?
 
Vadinho said:
At the very heart of fractional reserve banking is the interest of the bank itself. This is the central flaw in this system, it divorces any responsibility for the greater economy from the creator of money. It also introduces massive interest payments that all go to a bank. Now on the flip side, it does expand the money supply in a fairly efficient manner which solves some of the problems with the old gold and silver backed systems. Since the world is stuck with fiat money, it is paramount that governments control these activities so that lending practices further a greater good then just the income statements of bankers. What this video shows is that money itself is someones debt, that is how we introduce money into the system. Since money is a function of government, governments back money, taking the power to create money from any government introduces the risk of banks controlling the entire economy. If banks control the economy by putting everyone into debt, you end up with an economy that can never repay its debts which is exactly how we got to 22 trillion in debt at the federal level and even more on a personal level.
Click to expand...

3.1% economic growth makes the system look pretty good and Trump is doing that with liberals tying one hand behind his back!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom