Post Reply  Post Thread 

The Great American Delusion

Author Message
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #1
The Great American Delusion

Americans, everyday, repeat and propagate the teachings of the leaders who so obviously lie and slander the very fabric and historic excellence of American society. Feminists rally for the redundant rights that are already theirs. Socialists gather for tribunal 'democratic revolutions, despite such a thing being impossible,' as they embellish 'economic rights', AKA everyone is equally poor and the state makes sure nobody has the freedom to gain economic inequality. The likes of clintons preach about about horological implications of 'women in power.' Her main pandering being her genitals, as everything else, including her policies and character, is objectionable. The trumps of the world see Muslims and immigrants as criminals by birthright. The reactionary movement is extremely similar to fascism, although not quite. He is the candidate to be feared the most, as he propagates the very ideas that can easily evolve unto eternal and external warfare with those he discriminates against. Never mind the wall, which doesn't really matter, he wishes to annul globalization, the very last straw that holds countries at 'economic bay' to prevent world war. I need not say much about Cruz. Although I agree with his policies the most, he most certainly needs to attend an insane asylum, as he is possibly the most crazy of the bunch.

On an economic sense, the democrats seem to be the most deluded. Clinton proposes taxing thing like capital gains, the sole purpose obviously being to slow down the economy for the sake of stability. The US has a sizable national debt, however, such an extremist taxation is not necessary, as it is a long away off from being bankrupt as it currently is. Taking hints from her husband may be a good idea for her. He got rid of the cancerous welfare and glass steagal acts that were sucking the country dry. With those out the way, the country entered a prosperous time. The current talks for being 'tough on walstreet' are completely unnecessary, as, quite honestly, wallstreet is possibly the most important financial institution in the country. It allows small time investors to have cheap information of companies' capital, greatly increasing safety and reliability in a very beneficial way. The federal reserve I am wholly disappointed with. It has, several times, failed to stop financial reversals, mainly due to some amount of corruption and the system itself being ill disciplined to apply the necessary liquidity. Bernie sanders, although I have to admit, his pandering is quite effective, is just as deluded as clinton. He, like clinton, wishes to raise several taxes, most notably income and likely capital gains. It has good implications, the infrastructure will be helpful; however, it is entirely redundant, similarily to the Clinton taxation. It will decrease spending, consumer confidence, investment, expansion, and most notably job growth. The countries he mentions the most, Scandinavian countries, have a much, ironically, better system in place, where companies can still become rich and prosperous, and the countries are ranked accordingly. Overall, his policies will to the opposite of what he proposes, mainly because we are not China, and thus the fiat growth created by his massive projects will be short lived.

The republicans are rather strong on economic issues; however, they are weak socially and moderate internationally. Economically, they propose tax breaks and more crony capitalism, which will go a long way to increasing real GDP and job growth. The current job growth is not bad; however, it is not producing wage and GDP growth, which are of equal importance. Many of them are protectionist as well. Although I have already spoken out against it; it will still, somewhat, help the American economy. It will lead to a short term hike in prices, but long term financial growth. Parry this with a better financial system, and you have a very powerful economy, that will only periodically reverse, likely due to bad policy. Socially speaking, I disagree with them on several points, the most important being homosexuality and secularism. I am a heterosexual myself, but nevertheless I believe it is important to respect those who may not be like me. Homosexuals should be able to legally marry whomever they want, no matter the gender or circumstances, as long as both partners mutually agree. The argument that it is against traditions is flawed, as traditions aren't necessarily correct; they can be incredibly wrong. On a secular level, 'freedom from religion' should be enforced in all public buildings. I mainly think this way due to personal experiance; It is very perturbing as an atheist to see 'God' mentioned in the pledge of allegiance, as it alienates me from the country I love so much. I understand the perspective of theists; however, consider this: imagine if the pledge of allegiance had a phrase similar to 'without God' or 'under no god, for no God' that is the same way I feel when I see 'under God.' Simply speaking, it just isn't right that the pledge doesn't fully and patriotically apply to all citizens. Republicans are moderate internationally, mainly due to their stance on 'violence can be the answer.' Although war is terrible and objectionable, so is what the Islamo-fascists are doing in the Middle East, and I do not use that term lightly. They preach the destruction of America, and thus they must be destroyed. We have Russia and the rest of the world, except possibly Iran, We just need to occupy them(most of their power/income comes from the lands they occupy.) They are weak on international trade, and, finally, they are strong on immigration. Immigration can be very powerful fro a nation, but only a national that is heavily industrialized and needs cheap labor, something we do not need at the moment. It is a wasteful and dangerous expense, especially considering Muslims in the middle east are the most so,e of the most extremist in the world, and they are emigrating to a predominantly Christian nation, their historical enemy.

13.02.2016 02:50
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: The Great American Delusion

I don't see a capital gains tax as "extremism". If anything, it would reduce the GINI. The part of the US economy which needs stimulus or reduction in fiscal drag are households: aka labor. Cutting taxes on capital & leaving everything as is for labor will NOT improve the economy; will not create new jobs; will not revive lending. Simply because the amount of orders/sales will remain the same. And say you're a small or medium sized business who is struggling with low sales - the cut in taxes for you won't improve your balance sheet that much. Furthermore, if your sales will continue to decrease, you're still going to lay off more people & potentially go under.
A tax cut for capital only helps big capital - and it will only improve their balance sheet, while their sales remain the same.
So long as voters believe the rich create their jobs, this ruinous dogmatic & untrue reasoning will prevail - and the political debate will still entertain bullshit problems, instead of tackling the real ones.
Point is, cover the average household's savings desire, then household spending will improve - and as such, sales will improve, firms will increase output & hire more people. Let firms make profits off of sales, not off of depressed wages, depressed production, or off of low to zero taxes.
If the public understood double-entry accounting applied to the macro & understood how the monetary & banking system worked - the debate between the left & right would be, not about - "oh, the gov debt & deficit are too high" or "where will the money come from." The debate would be, what's the most efficient way to achieve these ends which we both agree on? Republicans would favor an indirect approach, like tax cuts. Democrats would favor a direct approach, like direct government spending. But at least they'd get the macro policy right, reaching required Aggregate Demand targets to promote full employment & price stability.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 13.02.2016 10:14 by Helsworth.

13.02.2016 10:10
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #3
RE: The Great American Delusion

Helsworth Wrote:
I don't see a capital gains tax as "extremism". If anything, it would reduce the GINI. The part of the US economy which needs stimulus or reduction in fiscal drag are households: aka labor. Cutting taxes on capital & leaving everything as is for labor will NOT improve the economy; will not create new jobs; will not revive lending. Simply because the amount of orders/sales will remain the same. And say you're a small or medium sized business who is struggling with low sales - the cut in taxes for you won't improve your balance sheet that much. Furthermore, if your sales will continue to decrease, you're still going to lay off more people & potentially go under.
A tax cut for capital only helps big capital - and it will only improve their balance sheet, while their sales remain the same.
So long as voters believe the rich create their jobs, this ruinous dogmatic & untrue reasoning will prevail - and the political debate will still entertain bullshit problems, instead of tackling the real ones.
Point is, cover the average household's savings desire, then household spending will improve - and as such, sales will improve, firms will increase output & hire more people. Let firms make profits off of sales, not off of depressed wages, depressed production, or off of low to zero taxes.
If the public understood double-entry accounting applied to the macro & understood how the monetary & banking system worked - the debate between the left & right would be, not about - "oh, the gov debt & deficit are too high" or "where will the money come from." The debate would be, what's the most efficient way to achieve these ends which we both agree on? Republicans would favor an indirect approach, like tax cuts. Democrats would favor a direct approach, like direct government spending. But at least they'd get the macro policy right, reaching required Aggregate Demand targets to promote full employment & price stability.


1. Decreasing capital taxes helps small businesses the most, as they have the smallest room for capital. Also, more capital means a higher want for exapnded markets so that the business can fully use all of its assets, which will create job growth.

2. Decreased taxes, and the increased production created by it, will increase sales, as the added supply will increase demand.(similar to what we are currently seeing with oil.)

3. I do agree with your final statement. Both of them sound quite silly, which is why I do not fully agree economically with either of them(of course, as you may know by now, I am a partial libertarian.) Both systems they propose work effectively and achieves the same goal, just in different ways. It comes down to situational aspects of the economy.

15.02.2016 14:59
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: The Great American Delusion

The main concern of any business owner first & foremost is the nr of sales; things like the size & nr of taxes & the cost of a business loans are secondary. Fix the former, and the latter become non-issues.
Decreasing taxes doesn't automatically translate into increased production. You get increased production only if people decide to spend more. So if your tax cut is not large enough to cover saving desire - spending levels & sales levels will remain the same - and no new jobs are gonna get created. In the economy, wealth trickles upwards. So it makes sense to tax at the top, not at the bottom. If you tax at the bottom, but not at the top. You're gonna force the bottom to mire itself into bank debt, because that's the only way for it to bootstrap - while the top is going to take in all the spending & the interest. And because of the unfair tax code, the top is transformed into the de facto aristocracy, and the bottom into the de facto serfs.
A sales tax reduction or abolition, a reduction in FICA or abolition of it is more helpful to small businesses than a cut or abolition of capital gains tax. They ensure more elastic output as well.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 15.02.2016 16:18 by Helsworth.

15.02.2016 16:17
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
  [The Economist] American taxes are unusually progressive. Government spending is not. Ajay Alcos 0 943 27.11.2017 15:56
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  A few simple steps to restore the American Economy to greatness again yangusbeef 4 1,262 14.12.2016 16:13
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Some great memes here Helsworth 0 1,057 26.07.2015 19:14
Last Post: Helsworth
  Financial Parasitism: Understanding the "Great Vampire Squids" Helsworth 1 1,037 27.06.2014 16:08
Last Post: Helsworth
  The Great Depression in Europe: Real GDP Data for 22 nations Helsworth 0 1,269 07.07.2013 13:55
Last Post: Helsworth
Wink American banking andruid 1 1,003 22.04.2013 06:47
Last Post: Helsworth
  American Markets VincentNikolai 46 6,835 14.06.2011 23:53
Last Post: Triniteras

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

Forum Jump: