US Politics Megathread

[spanky4ever]

here is one takedown on it, do you agree?
https://youtu.be/lT62Gd1-TjU

[fightinfrenchman]

I think Nancy just broke up with me

[spanky4ever]

should let that old hack go then @fightinfrenchman
As far as I can judge, Trump can do almost anything he wants, corruptions, warmongering, crazy tax cuts, immigration concentrations camps, because of one thing, only:
Nancy Pelosi and Chuch fuking Schumer, are not doing ANYTHING, they only object with a tiny mouse voice; pip, pip,

Ppl say the Dems are paid to lose? Could very well be IT

[occamslightsaber]

should let that old hack go then @fightinfrenchman
As far as I can judge, Trump can do almost anything he wants, corruptions, warmongering, crazy tax cuts, immigration concentrations camps, because of one thing, only:
Nancy Pelosi and Chuch fuking Schumer, are not doing ANYTHING, they only object with a tiny mouse voice; pip, pip,

Ppl say the Dems are paid to lose? Could very well be IT

Trump is many things, but I wouldn’t call him a warmonger (more like a loudmouth). Plus, illegal immigrants are free to leave those “concentration camps” and apply for asylum elsewhere.

Pelosi and Schumer understand that Americans despise political gridlock more than Trump and the Republicans. It would also be undemocratic to ignore them and throw a tantrum in Congress, since they have their own mandate from voters.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I think Andrew yang has some of the best ideas. Though I am not sure how his freedom dividend will impact the economy by taking out of the top, I think its a good place to start to help balance the economy. The real issue for that would be to stop fractional reserve lending and the fact that all money is lent into existence. I imagine a world where instead of new money being borrowed into existence it would only be evenly divided among all people. I see this happening as a reflection of the GDP we as a country produce, so that money actually has a relationship with the goods and services available: here is something I started to write about to explain it better for those that might be curious:

I think heavily on the issue of the economy and how money is created and exchanged through transactions. I have been formulating a plan for a new model that I think would work quite well. This is based on the concept that we are free peoples and this is a peoples Gov't there for the money should be distributed to the people and not lent out through banks. And also that the purpose of money is to act as a "receipt" for goods and services people provide to mitigate problems with the barter system.
here is my idea to balance and stabilize the economy I know it is a lot but i think its worth reading...
Step One= audit the fed to know exactly what we are dealing with.
Step Two= abolish centralized banking and offering amnesty to all bankers willing to forgo profits and help turn the system around. (to prevent a collapse)
Step Three= Take all monies owed to and paid back to the federal reserve ( a corrupt and unnessessary institution) and 90% of money collected by banks (their fractional reserve overload) and each year at tax time evenly distribute it to all people (maybe use tiers or adolescents) as a "dividend". do this until all the debt is erased and balanced with actual currency in the economy.
From then on only angel loans will be available for emergency purposes. Interest however small ruins the math equation (there may be a way to accommodate interest which we will talk about later)
Aim: This will boost the economy in that those who have no debt (as not to punish people making smart choices) will have a boost to do something extra, invest etc... and those in debt will be able to pay it off and have an income to participate in society, boosting production of others as a consumer.
Step 4= The creation of new money. Money will be issued on how much GDP of resources and services the country provides. For instance if a farmer makes 200 lbs of apples the govt says that is worth 400$ dollars (2$per lb). If a massage therapist does 100hrs of massage they say that is worth 6,000 (60$hr), a craftsman builds a chair at X amount of materials plus time ($50hr) = Y. Then the gov't tallys up that value each year and directly distributes it evenly to the people.
Aim: to have the currency in production match the resources and services rendered so that there is money to actually pay for them. This will allow those who produce to get their "dividend" and be successful by producing or serving in reaping what they actually sell. This still allows for free market because if there is a really good massage therapist they can charge more (like 100hr), it will most likely be the farmer who sells his apples who can afford the really good masseuse or the more expensive chair from the super talented artist. Or those can sell their work cheaper if they need more business. the values are just accepted values and arbitrary at this time. To keep things in balance the highest value wage would be no more than 7 times the lowest value range (say from doctors to low skilled jobs). These numbers may even fluctuate as if there become too many barbers and not enough mechanics then society would value mechanics at a higher rate to attract more people to that profession.
Possible consequences to deal with: One thing I need to figure out is if the total GDP needs to take in consideration expired resources. Would it need to be that the 400$ of apples the farmer made then be subtracted from the next years GDP or not? while a crafted chair can be bought and sold many times, people eat the apples and they are gone but the money would be in theeconomy forever. Which could lead to inflation so I think there would have to be expiration dates on resources created that match the lifespan of the services in some way.
I do not like interest but it could be integrated if the interest were tracked and accounted for and then added to the "dividend" and payed out evenly to all citizens.
How does the gov't collect taxes? It doesn't! because the Gov't jobs would be filling out its own resources and services created worksheets, but be paying the workers directly instead of them competing in the free market. They do the work society needs to continue to operate, however they have fixed prices for that work and can not charge more for being a really good teacher, or fireman.

I think a system similar to this would motivate people to work, stimulate positive economic growth and avoiding the cyclical natire of credit bubbles. It would take care of those that cant work or are inbetween jobs, while removing the complexities of many social services that would be obsolete. Please feel free to share this. and share ideas on how it could work

[fightinfrenchman]

@howlingwolfpaw Missed ya

[howlingwolfpaw]

well I am glad to see you still roam these parts of the web. I have a new computer now and a modern windows that gets updates for me to access this site again! yay.

[spanky4ever]

glad to c u back again @howlingwolfpaw
I bet there are many super-smart things in your philosophy above. I found it kind of complicated though. And it reminded me of a totalitarian system, where "somebody" on the top, decides what, when, where, how to distribute money to ppl. Kind of reminds me of the Sovjet system, where they tried to monitor and distriburte "everything". This is super complicated and takes millions of bureaucrats to (mis) manage.
I do like your ideas about the banking system though. As of now, it is far too unstable, and you are right: why should all "new" money be lent to the banks, so they can charge interest rates to the populations? Why should only the banks get "free money"? Would it be more correct/fair to give every citizen the money directly, so they can spend it in the economy?
I don't know, I am not THAT into economics

[fightinfrenchman]

Jesus Christ

https://twitter.com/billygendell/status ... 8375183360

[Horsemen]

Jesus Christ

Just goes to show how far the Democratic party has swung to the left, is bereft of serious ideas and is fully intent on impoverishing the United States for the sake of gaining power (the whole 'ends justify the means' mentality of Socialism).

[howlingwolfpaw]

The lefts slant towards communism is very dangerous. It will like it does and has motivate the best and brightest to go other places that will value the work they do and reward them for it, and the less efficient will run the institutions into the ground. Nothing is free.... bernies ideas of free education are like everyone going to a restaurant and orders whatever they want, at the end of the night the restaurant takes the total bill and divides it up to all, the incentive there will be to eat steak and lobster hoping someone will eat salad, or not even eat at all so you can get a cheap lobster dinner. Even though he says the money will come from taxing wallstreet, taking trillions out of the economy will have impacts on where and how or even if that money is invested here over somewhere else. Or find that the prices of things rise in unintended places. It may even cheapen the value of education and higher educated jobs. Everything he seems to talk about is working towards a totalitarian state

My plan is actually meant to be devoid of any means for a powerful singular entity to control. No big banks creating money and getting ownership of the entire economy that way. Its meant to foster the free market, while aligning the purpose of money to exchange for goods and services to match what is actually produced. Think of it this way, if someone creates a chair, to pay for it in our current system someone has to borrow that money to give it to the maker, he sells apples and then sells more apples to pay the interest to the bankers who did nothing to earn the money to lend, but the principle in this system is that the person created a chair with a value. That value is equally distributed among all so that the person so sell apples can get money to afford the chair. Yes it would take a legion of auditors to make sure the chair maker wasn't lying about how many chairs they were making to inflate the economy. But still the chair maker would have to sell the chairs to get the money so there is not that much incentive to lie about it.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Horsemen I need a party that isn't toon

[deleted_user]

@Horsemen I need a party that isn't toon

Stop, It feeds off wishes It knows can't be fulfilled.

[Amsel_]

Broke: rent control
Woke: limiting credit on residential properties to an amount that ensures every property has a reasonable cap rate

[n0el]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

[fightinfrenchman]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

Rent control exacerbates the housing crisis by disincentivizing people from building new housing

[Amsel_]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

It treats the symptom rather than the cause.

[spanky4ever]

@howlingwolfpaw say above, referring to Sanders

It may even cheapen the value of education and higher educated jobs. Everything he seems to talk about is working towards a totalitarian state

Beg to differ, cos everything Sanders is saying reminds me of Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, Germany, (and maybe many more) who are all countries that give free UNI education, and some of the countries also welcome citizens from other countries, that also get tuition-free education. Imagine that

Same goes for medicare for all, most western countries have had such arrangements for decades, and there is almost 100% consensus among the populations and the politicians, that this is something worth keeping. In fact, there are never any political parties running on the idea that they would get rid of it, and move to a system as the USA has. That would be political suicide.

[Dolan]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

I'm typically pro-market but there are two things which are poisoning capitalism: financial speculation and rampant real estate speculation. (Well, ok, there are three actually, I should include oligopolies here too.)

So I definitely think we need to come up with an intelligent way of limiting the extent to which landlords abuse their freedom to ask for higher and higher prices for just allowing someone to occupy a space. Especially when such hikes are completely unjustifiable in terms of rising costs. The problem is that the price of real estate and rents has a chain effect on the whole economy so when property owners speculate by asking higher rents, they are also increasing living costs for salaried people and costs for firms. In real estate, prices behave according to a principle which is the opposite of race to the bottom, it's a race to the top. The market is dysfunctional, competition does not drive prices down, everyone is just stubbornly sticking to their high asking price, because they know renters have no choice and eventually they will cave in. It's a dysfunctional seller's market.

And don't tell me they are doing this because their costs are rising. What costs? Owning and maintaining a flat or house doesn't cost you 10% of a typical rent.

Another solution would be for the state to develop public housing projects and let them out for lower prices, which should drive renting prices down. I bet this is already being done, but on a small scale and the projects are probably of low-quality and typically reserved for people on low income or welfare.

[spanky4ever]

apropos rent control


This is prolly not enough, but at least, it is a step in the direction for more affordable rents.

[Horsemen]

apropos rent control


This is prolly not enough, but at least, it is a step in the direction for more affordable rents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regu ... sts'_views

[Amsel_]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

I'm typically pro-market but there are two things which are poisoning capitalism: financial speculation and rampant real estate speculation. (Well, ok, there are three actually, I should include oligopolies here too.)

So I definitely think we need to come up with an intelligent way of limiting the extent to which landlords abuse their freedom to ask for higher and higher prices for just allowing someone to occupy a space. Especially when such hikes are completely unjustifiable in terms of rising costs. The problem is that the price of real estate and rents has a chain effect on the whole economy so when property owners speculate by asking higher rents, they are also increasing living costs for salaried people and costs for firms. In real estate, prices behave according to a principle which is the opposite of race to the bottom, it's a race to the top. The market is dysfunctional, competition does not drive prices down, everyone is just stubbornly sticking to their high asking price, because they know renters have no choice and eventually they will cave in. It's a dysfunctional seller's market.

And don't tell me they are doing this because their costs are rising. What costs? Owning and maintaining a flat or house doesn't cost you 10% of a typical rent.

Another solution would be for the state to develop public housing projects and let them out for lower prices, which should drive renting prices down. I bet this is already being done, but on a small scale and the projects are probably of low-quality and typically reserved for people on low income or welfare.

Rent prices aren't that bad in the United States. The problem is that real-estate in the cities is extremely expensive, so the owner of a residential property there needs to earn a lot in rent in order to keep up with mortgage payments. Go after the banks which drive real-estate prices up with ever-expanding credit, instead of the innocent land lords. It would also help alleviate the issue if we actually did something to end the economic devastation taking place in the countryside, so that people aren't moving to the cities for work. There are many states where we essentially have no economic classes - everyone is the same - poor. That means there's no social mobility in these areas. So I think the wrong approach is being taken here. Let's fix the banks, so that we don't have to fix the land lords. And let's fix West Virginia, so we don't have to fix San Francisco.

[howlingwolfpaw]

@howlingwolfpaw say above, referring to Sanders

It may even cheapen the value of education and higher educated jobs. Everything he seems to talk about is working towards a totalitarian state

Beg to differ, cos everything Sanders is saying reminds me of Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, Germany, (and maybe many more) who are all countries that give free UNI education, and some of the countries also welcome citizens from other countries, that also get tuition-free education. Imagine that

Same goes for medicare for all, most western countries have had such arrangements for decades, and there is almost 100% consensus among the populations and the politicians, that this is something worth keeping. In fact, there are never any political parties running on the idea that they would get rid of it, and move to a system as the USA has. That would be political suicide.

I do not know much about the history of this but I would speculate it started as a ruse to keep people going to school in those areas so people would not "leave the nest" well. For some reason America is still seen as a desired place to go to school, and draws people world wide. What works for one are is also not guaranteed to work for another for cultural reasons. Question: once someone receives a "free" degree do they have to serve a time in that field? in that country? are they able to seek degree after degree? any limits?

But please Its not free... people are paying for it. and paying for others to go to school as well. Which draws back to my analogy of eating at a restaurant but paying only the average price. Bernies policies do nothing to stop the concern of rising cost of education. It will likely get more expensive.

Americans are already taxed to the breach to uphold the world's military policer status and UN and NATO. and donators to developing nations. There are many hidden taxes and fees that try to hide the true tax rate. The biggest problem is the banks. and that all income tax goes to the profit for the banks as interest on national loans to itself. IF that were changed many problems would solve themselves naturally

A state issued health insurance is something I do support however. And if the state can do it cheaper and better it will naturally take over. Insurance companies should not be driven by profit off the sick.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Rent prices aren't that bad in the United States. The problem is that real-estate in the cities is extremely expensive, so the owner of a residential property there needs to earn a lot in rent in order to keep up with mortgage payments. Go after the banks which drive real-estate prices up with ever-expanding credit, instead of the innocent land lords. It would also help alleviate the issue if we actually did something to end the economic devastation taking place in the countryside, so that people aren't moving to the cities for work. There are many states where we essentially have no economic classes - everyone is the same - poor. That means there's no social mobility in these areas. So I think the wrong approach is being taken here. Let's fix the banks, so that we don't have to fix the land lords. And let's fix West Virginia, so we don't have to fix San Francisco.[/quote]


Absolutely, so many problems would solve themselves out if centralized banking were not a thing, and banks did not make money off fractional reserve lending, which inflates the price of everything.
See my solution for an economy that builds wealth

[Dolan]

Any one care to make a reasoned argument against rent control policies or are we just going with socialism, communism, etc....

I'm typically pro-market but there are two things which are poisoning capitalism: financial speculation and rampant real estate speculation. (Well, ok, there are three actually, I should include oligopolies here too.)

So I definitely think we need to come up with an intelligent way of limiting the extent to which landlords abuse their freedom to ask for higher and higher prices for just allowing someone to occupy a space. Especially when such hikes are completely unjustifiable in terms of rising costs. The problem is that the price of real estate and rents has a chain effect on the whole economy so when property owners speculate by asking higher rents, they are also increasing living costs for salaried people and costs for firms. In real estate, prices behave according to a principle which is the opposite of race to the bottom, it's a race to the top. The market is dysfunctional, competition does not drive prices down, everyone is just stubbornly sticking to their high asking price, because they know renters have no choice and eventually they will cave in. It's a dysfunctional seller's market.

And don't tell me they are doing this because their costs are rising. What costs? Owning and maintaining a flat or house doesn't cost you 10% of a typical rent.

Another solution would be for the state to develop public housing projects and let them out for lower prices, which should drive renting prices down. I bet this is already being done, but on a small scale and the projects are probably of low-quality and typically reserved for people on low income or welfare.

Rent prices aren't that bad in the United States. The problem is that real-estate in the cities is extremely expensive, so the owner of a residential property there needs to earn a lot in rent in order to keep up with mortgage payments. Go after the banks which drive real-estate prices up with ever-expanding credit, instead of the innocent land lords. It would also help alleviate the issue if we actually did something to end the economic devastation taking place in the countryside, so that people aren't moving to the cities for work. There are many states where we essentially have no economic classes - everyone is the same - poor. That means there's no social mobility in these areas. So I think the wrong approach is being taken here. Let's fix the banks, so that we don't have to fix the land lords. And let's fix West Virginia, so we don't have to fix San Francisco.

That's probably the case in the USA. From what I've seen here, landlords typically own the properties they rent. In Europe, typically people don't live on debt, and their properties are not mortgaged. So there is a class of people here who live comfortably off renting. They don't even have to work, they own like 4 flats and they're able to live well only with the proceeds they get from rent, after clearing their taxes.