Donald Trump

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It wouldn't matter what information I posted to explain or prove whether tax cuts generate a stronger economy. People who don't know how companies really work from a hands on perspective won't be able to gauge whether what I say is accurate or not. They will have to rely on "experts" and economists, and academics. While these folks seem to "know" a lot, they aren't the actual drivers of the economy.

They can talk about expanding and contracting economies and what drives them, but again, they are not there in the board room making decisions. When you are the owner/executive/decision maker of a company and you know EXACTLY why your company decided to do X instead of Y, it is an entirely different game.

The core of your argument is the same as the quacking loon who claims God has spoken directly to him. You say an experience not easily experienced is the only way to know what you're talking about. Bullshit to that.

Here's a counter-suggestion: how about you present your arguments in earnest.

-----

According to data, the top 1% own about 35% of the wealth in the United States. That's a lot, but it's not a majority. It's probably accurate to say the top 4% have a slight majority of wealth, but 1 in 25 isn't so exclusive as to limit things to boardroom participants. It's not the richest of the rich which drive the economy, but the lower upper class / upper middle class.

So temper your elitism a tad, eh? Distribution of wealth is pretty extreme, but not that extreme. Not yet, anyway.

This of course isn't to say that the lower end of upper class is easily relatable. It's still sometimes challenging. Just not by any means impossible.

Someone forgot to pay the bill, and of course the absolute madman jumped straight in lol.

http://clintonkaine.com/

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It wouldn't matter what information I posted to explain or prove whether tax cuts generate a stronger economy. People who don't know how companies really work from a hands on perspective won't be able to gauge whether what I say is accurate or not. They will have to rely on "experts" and economists, and academics. While these folks seem to "know" a lot, they aren't the actual drivers of the economy.

They can talk about expanding and contracting economies and what drives them, but again, they are not there in the board room making decisions. When you are the owner/executive/decision maker of a company and you know EXACTLY why your company decided to do X instead of Y, it is an entirely different game.

The core of your argument is the same as the quacking loon who claims God has spoken directly to him. You say an experience not easily experienced is the only way to know what you're talking about. Bullshit to that.

I'm not sure what you are reading into my posts, but I think your appraisal is 180 degrees off. My intention is not to be aloof, or that my experience is special. I'm just attempting to give my first hand observations to the degree I can.

Let's take the following phrases:

"You had to be there" "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Why do those phrases jibe so well with human experience?

Why do scientists need to do observations anyways? Often an observation or experience confirms something that can't be confirmed without the observation.

Knowledge can come from many places. Aside from observation, humans can share knowledge through language.

As a bad analogy:

When a scientist does an experiment and mixes two clear chemicals in solution, and a precipitate forms and falls out:



He then sells vials of the precipitate.

The analyst on the outside sees this:



And might not connect the fact that two clear substances were mixed to form a non transparent substance.

The outside analyst could interview the scientist. The outside analyst could be in the room observing the reaction. However, without already knowing about precipitates, he would most likely not make the attribution.

Imagine that you, as the lab assistant who watched it happen, read in the news the analysis that "Scientists at XYZ labs mixed a clear solution and a cloudy white solution to get a white precipiate". You know that the analysis is wrong. Had the analyst made an observation or investigated or researched a little more, they could have derived the truth.

It doesn't take any kind of elite position to have seen what I was talking about for business. A lot (but not all) of small business owners and executives think in similar fashion. They have to. It is a very darwinian process, and there is no gold star for doing your best. Many shoot from the hip, sometimes utilizing whatever analysis factors they have access to or have learned from experience to be successful. They seldom shift tactics from a winning method until that method fails. There is a lot more reliance on instinct than many would think, and a lot of partnerships and decisions are based in part on trusting the other person's instincts and track records.

Many of the same factors affect small business owners and large companies. Businesses generally try to isolate themselves from factors that would make them fail. A large chunk of those factors are internal practices. People on the outside of a company don't see what happens in *that* company.

For example: Unless Business X reports it, those on the outside don't know that Business X isn't actually losing a large chunk of money off their online aspect, and have to focus those tax savings on staying afloat until they can ride out the shut down of the online venture. What they see from the outside is that the business got a tax savings under the new law, but didn't seem to invest the tax savings in hiring or expanding their company.

If you or anyone else wanted to, they could just call and set up interviews with a dozen or so successful small business owners and talk to them about what they have learned and how they view the tax and regulatory practice. Nothing special involved there, just communication.

They may keep a few of their best tactics confidential (if they think a competitor can gain an edge with it), but by and large what they tell you will be information that you can use to interpret many other business decisions.

If an economist has done that, and integrates macro and micro economics using business psychology, they can derive some very good approximations of what is happening - with a few minor limits based on key information that big companies are keeping close to the vest.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Here's a counter-suggestion: how about you present your arguments in earnest.

I have been, I just haven't been giving RL examples that would make the points clear and researchable.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

-----

According to data, the top 1% own about 35% of the wealth in the United States. That's a lot, but it's not a majority. It's probably accurate to say the top 4% have a slight majority of wealth, but 1 in 25 isn't so exclusive as to limit things to boardroom participants. It's not the richest of the rich which drive the economy, but the lower upper class / upper middle class.

So temper your elitism a tad, eh? Distribution of wealth is pretty extreme, but not that extreme. Not yet, anyway.

No elitism is intended, and I apologize if it came across that way. I did rewrite a few sections before I posted to try an avoid that - but obviously I failed :(

I'm just trying to give a few insights from personal experiences.

I have no idea how many or few people read off topic, but I didn't expect that my experiences would be all that unique. As an example, I was talking with a friend from Sudan, whose husband runs a small business (less than a dozen employees)and she was dismayed that he was voting for Trump - because he believed Trump's lowering of taxes would help him. She said that her husband was still working 16 hour days, and his profits were so marginal due to taxes and local regulatory aspects that forced him to use resources that weren't cost efficient.

The struggle is real at every level, and government needs to be more efficient. That isn't to say Trump will be able to accomplish that, or that his tax plan will do it either. There do need to be some caveats to any tax incentives, and Trump does have experience with a lot of the ins and outs various businesses utilize, as well as take advantage of unfairly.

IMO - that opens the door for a better crafted tax policy - **IF** Trump is honest about it and remains true to his promises. A big if, certainly, but he has more potential to reform the tax system than Hillary does. [/quote]

Trump's tax positions may be irrelevant in a few more hours anyways - it will be interesting to see what Wikileaks has on Hillary. I'm sure the feds have signed all the necessary immunities and whatnot to keep any prosecution from happening, but how the public takes it may make that a moot point.

Wew lads, Pence just killed Kaine in the debate.

The Silver Fox BTFO'd Creepy Kaine hard

In tangential trump news, his biggest support outside of Russia, the UKIP party in England has lost another leader, bringing it to two resignations after driving the push to break from the EU on fear and anxiety.

UKIP kinda lost its purpose after 'are Nige' achieved his life goal.

Liberalism - not even once.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63h59hFcX0

Come to Russia with Tгuмp

Hmm, Famous actors vs honest hard working people. Whose voting advice should we listen to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfJZsXGzYp0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHLdYuzXqPI

Meanwhile - reportedly - even the Amish are turning out to support Trump - in the rain.