Donald Trump

"

Poutsos wrote:

You know Aim_Deep, you identify as a libertarian. I am WAY over to the left of the political spectrum (as in Bernie Sanders is around the center, a New Deal capitalist), but i usually agree on foreign policy issues with true libertarians. I do agree with most of the things you 've written, even though the "socialist for the rich" is very naive. I do get what you mean though. State interventionism for using tax payers money to bail out Banks, as it happened over there in 2008, and is still happening here in Europe (I live in Greece mind you). But calling this "socialism" is very innacurate and downright wrong.

For me free markets will absolutely never work, because this is what you get. You concentrate money, which means you conentrate power and then you have Corporations controlling goverments. The "socialism for the rich" to use your works is a direct result of not properly regulated capitalism.

You really need to understand Rent-seeking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

The more you have government do the more the powerful can latch onto corrupt and venal politicians for the profits instead of in the free market and in true service. It's no accident bigger and more rules taxes govts get more impoverished people become. Also more you can eliminate competition through complex laws and barriers to entry so everything starts costing more.

I'll just give a local example. My family have been swimming pool/general contractors since the 1970s. Back then you needed no license, no millions of regs from EPA impact study, water studies, architectural stamps etc It's basically impossible to start today without a thick bankroll. Millions of dollars. All these costs are passed onto consumer. We have little competition from our (former) workers because they'll never get millions of dollars. They are locked into debt hourly rates even though they understand how to dig a hole in the ground and fill it with iron and concrete better than I. And we are pretty small time. Gets much worse bigger you get.

I wont even get into the politicians we have to butter up legally for certain projects public pays for. I'm pretty young but shit I've seen makes me very cynical.

The Second Welfare Theorem is: for each optimal self-sustaining economic state, there exists a lump-sum redistribution of wealth such that, if the free market takes over afterward, the desired economic state would be achieved.

I don't see how an advocate of laissez-faire could strongly disagree with that, unless they believe they're in a world without governmental corruption and/or criminal activity. People have used force and fraud, both with and without government sanction, to obtain unfair advantages.

My interpretation of the Second Welfare Theorem is: for each set of unjust deviations from a just laissez-faire economy, there exists a way to Ctrl+Z it with the combination of 1) a lump-sum redistribution of wealth to counter the previous deviation, and 2) reinstituting the rules of laissez-faire.

Now, disagreeing with whether such a redistribution should be attempted, that's a different matter. Trying to solve unjust redistributions of wealth with redistribution of wealth is like practicing necromancy to win a fight against the undead. There's a decent possibility the attempt is corrupted, fails, and the situation is worse than ever before.

Well, by government distribution I mean government transfering money mostly, not controlling the actual means of production (healthcare again, single payer and multi payer are alternatives depending on how market based you want it to be on the insurance side).

About your criticism...well...I'm not sure of how to interprete that, I'll ask economists at reddit and I tell you later. It's not like the theorem is statistical. I trust the experts because I'm a layman, :P

PS: nevermind you already edited, I can't ask anymore. Just remember that everything can be studied, tested, changed and discarded. As they say "North Korea is an unethical experiment about central planning made by some neoliberal shills".

I don;t see how free trade has been good. All these people rioting would have jobs and community to go to instead of failing schools to prison pipeline. Instead our big corps farm out pretty much everything we consume to slave labor camps in China Bangladesh or wherever. Seems worse. Good for wall street I'm sure but has priced American labor out of the market. Even mininum wage cant compete with $2 a day. Except for what we cant import then we just import cheap often illegal labor for that.

I like idea of Free trade but you're not competing on equal surfaces. One has workman's comp, unemployment insurance, high wages mandated, health care etc. Other uses slave labor.

Save your breath consulting experts they are always wrong. Unlike me with no college education predicted everything about Libya and many other things. It's just common sense.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Stand up to Russia LMAO. USA has not won a war since WW2 (which Russians did 99% of the work).

The most successful wars are those that never need be fought. Failing to recognize that "stand up to", is not the same as "engage in combat with" is - telling.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Rag tag guys with sandles handed us our ass.

The same rag tags that we taught and helped hand Russia their ass and ended up helping bring down the USSR?

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Get a grip man. We'd be lucky to beat Granada at this point.

The US army is a joke and political leaders even moreso. Big govt at work. All good conservatives should see contridiction in their lauding military and dissing every other program but no it fails them

wtf over? does not compute.

The exact same deleterious mechanics are at work in military. revolving door, no accountability, no standards but yes men to pevailing winds, people who couldnt get a real job in the free market, etc

You've got a serious bias against the military.

Jack Taylor, who said the Navy helped him mature and gain a sense of competence, is a great example of one of those people who couldn't get a job in the free market. That must be why the company he founded hires more college graduates than any other company in the world, and why he passed away worth 5.3 Billion dollars and 90,000 employees.

There's also that Ne'er do well, Abraham Lincoln, whose service in the militia kept him from getting any meaningful work afterwards. and allowed a civil war to succeed and divide our nation.

Another example of one of those people who couldn't get a job in the free market, is this former Navy Captain - Sheesh, who would ever hire him?

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

If you want to fix the middle east my advice is give them trillions of dollars ...

Because throwing money at things always solves the problem. That's why we had a cure for cancer thirty years ago, and public school education in the US is the best worldwide, and we obviously have the best health care system worldwide too, because we throw the most money at it.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

for all the pain and suffering USA policy has caused the last 70 years. Reject the Israel lobby, the fascist gulf monarchs lobby, or any lobby for that matter and become a beacon of freedom and justice we claim to be.

If you mean a beacon for free, unearned cash, I'd agree with your methodology.

The largest problem I see in our country right now, is this weird dichotomy of incentives and punishment.

We incentivize the top echelon with tax breaks and golden parachutes, we pay them to motivate them, we tell them they can do no wrong, and actually encourage them in the market to do wrong to create market volatility and the top echelon move money around between each other and by and large everyone grows their wealth, with government bail outs if the calculations are wrong.

Meanwhile at the bottom we offer lots of punishment. We don't incentivize poor people to keep their cars maintained, we hit them with fines that build to jail time if they don't. We don't incentivize to go to school and be good students, we charge them with truancy and make them life long criminals if they don't go to school. We don't incentivize to expand horizons and find a calling, we load them up with grinding debt from every facet of life and tell them to work two or three jobs just to keep their head above water and if they don't, we charge them as criminal debt holders.

Just think the fella that was shot by police in Minnesota had been pulled over and ticketed 52 times for taillights or out of date inspections. He had over $6500 in fines, at about $125 a pop for trivial issues with his vehicle and was eventually shot and killed because his taillight was out and he was legally carrying a firearm and properly alerted the stopping officer a firearm was present. That is the problem. Just imagine that basically everytime something minor in your life, like a light bulb goes out, a police officer calls you on it and gives you a punishment. Pulls you over and implicitly or explicitly accuses you of being 71 different flavors of criminal. It would be tiring.

"

LostForm wrote:

The largest problem I see in our country right now, is this weird dichotomy of incentives and punishment.

We incentivize the top echelon with tax breaks and golden parachutes, we pay them to motivate them, we tell them they can do no wrong, and actually encourage them in the market to do wrong to create market volatility and the top echelon move money around between each other and by and large everyone grows their wealth, with government bail outs if the calculations are wrong.

Meanwhile at the bottom we offer lots of punishment. We don't incentivize poor people to keep their cars maintained, we hit them with fines that build to jail time if they don't. We don't incentivize to go to school and be good students, we charge them with truancy and make them life long criminals if they don't go to school. We don't incentivize to expand horizons and find a calling, we load them up with grinding debt from every facet of life and tell them to work two or three jobs just to keep their head above water and if they don't, we charge them as criminal debt holders.

Just think the fella that was shot by police in Minnesota had been pulled over and ticketed 52 times for taillights or out of date inspections. He had over $6500 in fines, at about $125 a pop for trivial issues with his vehicle and was eventually shot and killed because his taillight was out and he was legally carrying a firearm and properly alerted the stopping officer a firearm was present. That is the problem. Just imagine that basically everytime something minor in your life, like a light bulb goes out, a police officer calls you on it and gives you a punishment. Pulls you over and implicitly or explicitly accuses you of being 71 different flavors of criminal. It would be tiring.

Which is why Hillary should face the law for what she has done

I see no connection there between my comment and yours. Sometimes I really worry about people. In fact the Clintons were champions of incentives for the bottom echelons to motivate in the 90's. It is one of the reasons America did so well in the 90's and really gained a spot in the world's eyes and doing things the right way. Of course that has been thrown away by extremely punitive people afterwards.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Capitalism is so far from perfect im surprised it's so prevalent. It incentivizes buying low and selling high, and capitalizing on trade secrets/ hidden financials (which is a breeding ground for corruption) / marketting/ trademarks/ and copyrights. All of which do not benefit society. Business for the sole sake of making money, at the expense of the customer and the employees.

Capitalism allows the individual to pursue his goals in freedom and own the resulting profit. Most of the current global wealth has been created this way. Socialism doesnt even allow you to produce more than "needed" and own the tools with which you work.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Corruption is another reason why both communism and capitalism both fall far short of their potential. The only solution i see to that is complete transparency so that the violations of the law can be spotted by regular citizens.

Corruption in Communism / Socialism is inherent to the system. The Party & bureocracy controls everything and you can't do shit about it. Contrary, corruption in capitalism is fought because its bad for business. Socialist countries like Venezuela are the most corrupt countries on earth.

"

SkyCore wrote:

A free market cannot be relied on to place attention and resources into fields vital for growth and sustainability. And here is where communism shines.

Sorry but you are 100% wrong, so dead wrong. Free market is the only system that can be relied to do just that. Communism / Socialism is total crap at producing resources that people need, becaue it doesnt give a fuck what you need. Central planning will produce only the goods the regime deems as needed, even if the population is starving. Socialism is synonym for inefficiency. Ever heard about Holodomor, for example?

Why do you think Russia today has the ability to produce hi-tech military thingys and put men into orbit, but cannot produce a car that can compete on the world market? Decades of central planning, that put military first and gave a fuck about citizen needs or development of civil technologies. How many Russian products do you have in your house vs Japanese, Korean, German, American...? I thought so.

---
I cannot fathom the infatuation of young and educated (???) people in the West with socialism / communism. These systems are complete and utter garbage at everything. They exterminated whole social classes (middle, upper, intelectuals...), and completely destoyed countries - economically, culturally & mentally. ffs, read some history... -_-

---
On a related note: the old socialist loon Bernie Sanders finally bended the knee and endorsed Hillary. I actually thought this marxist had some ideological integrity, but I guess not, hahaha... :))

New Quinnipac polls lads, look at them swing states: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/