Post Reply  Post Thread 

Strata of politics

Author Message
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #1
Strata of politics

Dr. Bitch(aka dr. Carson)(republican) - this guy seems antisocial and is incredibly arrogant. He even had the audacity to refuse trump's high five! The only thing he seems to rationally have any knowledge about is medicine. Everything else is a rehash of what he probably reads on Fox News!

Curly brown haired kid who looks like he is on drugs and somehow stumbled into the 2nd republican presidential debate(republican)(can't remember his name but you can definitely notice him if you watch the debate) - He made some good points, but just look at his hair! Lmao! He tried to defend himself, but it is a certainty that he will lose his 1%. I am not embellishing this either.

Trump, fascist who has grabbed america's hearts - What a boss man! He used multiple slang and sophomoric words that totally set the tone! He most likely took a few percentile from the others except dr Carson and that woman. Otherwise, he seems like a complete bumbling doofus who has no idea what he is saying half the time or is literally trolling everyone.

Bernie Sanders, the asshole socialist who wants to steal everyone's money and turn them into Jewish slaves and an U.S.S.R like country - I love him. Won't saying anything because it will be biased.

Hillary shiton(aka Hillary Clinton) - I have never seen a presidential run this delusional. Her past idiotic fuck ups (excuse my language mods) is screwing her campaign. All of her policies are pretty shit as well. Bernie will eventually overtake her because America loves assholes (see trump). I don't know much about her actual standing and nor do I care, like most Americans.

Thank you for reading my interpretation of America's strata of political leaders. I will be interesting in seeing helsworth's response as he seems like the only intellectual man on this forums that won't try to argue with me and actually make good points.

19.09.2015 02:19
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #2
RE: Strata of politics

Yangusbeef Wrote:
2. Other, Dr. Carson. He is the first sensible, respectful, republican I actually like. He is a good back up, so to speak, if Bernie fails.

I see you've changed your opinion on him.
Well, I think everyone would agree that most (mainstream) political arenas in the world are of various shades of grey, and they all lean dark if you ask me.
Sanders indeed seems like the lesser evil, albeit I've always been circumspect about him since the first time I heard about him. Rest assured, both republicans and democrats don't understand double entry bookkeeping, don't understand the role of taxes in a free floating nonconvertible fiat regime.
When I'll hear from progressives and reactionaries these statements: "Gov spending finances gov taxation. The US gov cannot run out of money. Gov does not borrow from bankers, it simply pays a free subsidy to the rich when it issues gilts. The fiscal deficit is the net financial surplus of the nongovernment sector. The gov debt is nongovernment sector equity." then I'll know they got their shit together, and that they've moved the debate from the realm of fictitious reality in which we bask today, and the true debate will be - to which purposes should we allocate physical resources, for the so-called money cost does not exist. What's important is to achieve and maintain full employment and price stability. The means to do that, of course, will be determined by political preference. Some people might want less taxation. Others might want more gov spending. Others might want a combination of both, myself included.





From US congressman Wright Patman, 1941




A visual graph that shows the automatic stabilizers in action (in both cycles acting counter-cyclically) - gov fiscal movement in relation to civilian unemployment rate (endogenous relation); Shortfall of nongovernment sector spending gets covered by increased spending from the government sector. Higher nongov sector saving desires leads to less nongov sector spending which (by accounting definition) leads to less income for the nongov sector. When nongov sector spending recovers & rises, government sector spending lowers - more tax revenue due to higher sales and economic activity and less welfare payments do to fewer people being unemployed.



https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.09.2015 09:48 by Helsworth.

19.09.2015 09:46
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #3
RE: Strata of politics

Helsworth Wrote:

Yangusbeef Wrote:
2. Other, Dr. Carson. He is the first sensible, respectful, republican I actually like. He is a good back up, so to speak, if Bernie fails.

I see you've changed your opinion on him.
Well, I think everyone would agree that most (mainstream) political arenas in the world are of various shades of grey, and they all lean dark if you ask me.
Sanders indeed seems like the lesser evil, albeit I've always been circumspect about him since the first time I heard about him. Rest assured, both republicans and democrats don't understand double entry bookkeeping, don't understand the role of taxes in a free floating nonconvertible fiat regime.
When I'll hear from progressives and reactionaries these statements: "Gov spending finances gov taxation. The US gov cannot run out of money. Gov does not borrow from bankers, it simply pays a free subsidy to the rich when it issues gilts. The fiscal deficit is the net financial surplus of the nongovernment sector. The gov debt is nongovernment sector equity." then I'll know they got their shit together, and that they've moved the debate from the realm of fictitious reality in which we bask today, and the true debate will be - to which purposes should we allocate physical resources, for the so-called money cost does not exist. What's important is to achieve and maintain full employment and price stability. The means to do that, of course, will be determined by political preference. Some people might want less taxation. Others might want more gov spending. Others might want a combination of both, myself included.





From US congressman Wright Patman, 1941




A visual graph that shows the automatic stabilizers in action (in both cycles acting counter-cyclically) - gov fiscal movement in relation to civilian unemployment rate (endogenous relation); Shortfall of nongovernment sector spending gets covered by increased spending from the government sector. Higher nongov sector saving desires leads to less nongov sector spending which (by accounting definition) leads to less income for the nongov sector. When nongov sector spending recovers & rises, government sector spending lowers - more tax revenue due to higher sales and economic activity and less welfare payments do to fewer people being unemployed.


My opinion has not changed, I love bitches. Anyhow, I believe that these ignorant politicians are a product of old politics. Eventually they may die out, however it will take several decades. The days of merit defeats charisma is a myth. Just look at the IQ of president bush and most politicians, more than likely it is below 130. Politics and economics are beyond their comprehension, yet they merely need to use daddy's and corporations' influences to win presidential elections, with a little bit of pizzaz, of course. It is quite a sad state of affairs and is a definite product of the Cold War. Technology has way out reached politicians and now they have no idea what the fuck they are doing. I disagree with the unemployment = 0 stance. The unemployed are those who will serve in the military and give churches someone to indoctrinate. Overall, most of you said is common sense, and those are well used graphs.

A country not be sustained with a 'balanced' economy, so to speak. (Low taxes + high government spending) and it seems quite naive to me. A country must be polarized: either incredibly high government spending or a liberal society. (Not a neoliberal society either) A balanced economy is suspect to economical crashes.

19.09.2015 15:46
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #4
RE: Strata of politics

Low taxes & high gov spending is not naive. More than 95% of the money supply is endogenously created (it is bank credit, i.e. our money, leveraged off of High Powered Money (treasuries, cash, coins, and reserves)).
If you take the average wallet of an American, you'll see he has more money in credit cards, then has in debit cards or cash.

So take the above image for instance, and shrink the bank debt levels (the majority of which represent simply speculation) and increase the gov debt levels (which, again, a great portion of that debt represents subsidies to the rich (interest bearing securities owned by the rich)) - via, say, public utilities sold at cost, basic income, universal health care, free education, and public housing programs.

Main role of taxes is to create permanent demand for the gov's currency, thus ensuring the currency has value. Other roles of taxes should be those of penalizing undesired economic activity (such as consumption of (too much) alcohol and tabacco), or discouraging fossil fuel technologies - excise taxes serve this role. Other type of role is to curb private rent extraction, a land-value tax would serve this role. Other type of role is to ensure a fair distribution of funds (a better GINI coefficient), capital gains taxes would serve this role. A consumption tax, though I'm not a fan of them, work as automatic stabilizer in the upward cycle - more people spending money on things ensures higher tax-revenue. Gov's fiscal position is reactive to nongov sector spending behavior.
The Nazis ended unemployment via fiscal stimulus, and they kept a low interest rate to ensure smaller cost on all portfolios. A pity they focused on military goals, instead of civilian production. The same can be said about a lot of other countries.
I agree with you, appearance beats essence - ppl aren't interested in facts, they're interested in delivery. People say they're interested in truth, yet they're turned off about having to be honest themselves.
Like Marcus Aurelius said, "The purpose of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape the ranks of the insane."
Yes, the NAIRU (the buffer stock of unemployed labor or the reserve-army of the unemployed as it's called) has socio-economic functions for the establishment. The establishment uses the NAIRU to put downward pressure on wages and "discipline" labor, scarring the shit out of the middle class like George Carlin so brilliantly stated the role of the poor in society - and it creates a constant supply of war fodder for the Army & for hawkish political agendas. If everyone had jobs, decent income, families, prospects, and personal financial security - who the hell would want to join the Army to kill people for the interests of trans-national financial interests?


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.09.2015 17:31 by Helsworth.

19.09.2015 17:16
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VineFynn
Lord Protector
*


Posts: 107
Words count: 14,196
Group: Basic
Joined: May2014
Status: Away
Reputation: 3
Experience: 132
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #5
RE: Strata of politics

yangusbeef Wrote:
The days of merit defeats charisma is a myth.

People don't vote for words, they vote for results.

Mackenzie King, Robert Menzies, John Howard- if they can make the country work, people vote for them. Even if they do have absurd opinions on immigration.

Charisma can only win you one election- the first. After that, you're dead meat as far as bad policy or an untimely recession (sometimes the same thing) goes.


I'm leaving and probably never coming back, so thanks for the interesting discussions I guess, dunno why im writing this nobody even irl gives a toss about me anyway

This post was last modified: 30.09.2015 12:16 by VineFynn.

30.09.2015 12:16
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  George Lakoff, Moral politics, how Americans frame things Helsworth 1 1,641 02.07.2017 07:03
Last Post: Akeron
  Bernard A. Lietaer on Chartalism, Nobel prize politics, economics etc Helsworth 0 1,145 16.10.2016 21:14
Last Post: Helsworth
  Getting Real Tired of U.S. Politics yangusbeef 1 1,554 24.08.2016 19:33
Last Post: Lord Alexander
  German politics, Merkel, and the CDU ReligiousRight 51 13,899 30.09.2015 13:53
Last Post: Helsworth
  Is this the politics of the "Moral Majority"? StatlerNWaldorf 12 2,804 19.08.2013 22:38
Last Post: StatlerNWaldorf
  Trash Politics StatlerNWaldorf 2 1,376 09.05.2013 05:57
Last Post: StatlerNWaldorf
  The politics of symbolism and imperialism Helsworth 0 1,284 31.01.2013 11:18
Last Post: Helsworth
  British politics GeorgeBell 6 1,902 12.05.2011 20:28
Last Post: RichardAWilson
  Jesus's politics thisisme9403 25 5,234 17.04.2011 04:39
Last Post: awil90
  U.S. politics currently Killer300 164 35,015 27.01.2011 02:53
Last Post: fanlynne

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: