President Trump has an easy win in 2020

[watisthis]

How about any of you armchair economists explain to me how insane amounts of income inequality, high levels of corporate debt, high levels of household debt, overly centralized manufacturing, decades of crazy low interest rates, and an uncheck bull market, are good for the economy and aren't going to cause a coming recession. The economy is a tinderbox waiting for a match.

Seriously, give me any reason to think you understand how our economy works.

Sponsored

 

[bigfoot21075]

How about you explain any of this, lmao. You simple DO NOT understand how the economy works you just read off headlines from MSM media and believe you and them are experts.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...v-obama-economy-charts/?utm_source=reddit.com

You treat everything the bullshit MSM says about the stock market, unemployment and interest rates as the only important factors of an economy. If you look at how income is distributed, how segregated incomes are, how many people are struggling, number of uninsured, levels of debt, etc and so on. With a stock market crash tens of millions of Americans are going to be on the edge of survival and that is very worrying.

IF I were to believe the MSM I would believe Obama was the saviour and he is responsible for the great economy. YOU are the one posting crap sites. You have no clue how the economy works or you would know that it was deregulation and tax breaks that lit it on fire. You are either intentionally misleading or simply that ill informed. I will not argue with you, your TDS is overshadowing your ability to reason. TDS is far more dangerous than Coronavirus, that's for sure......

 

[watisthis]

IF I were to believe the MSM I would believe Obama was the saviour and he is responsible for the great economy. YOU are the one posting crap sites. You have no clue how the economy works or you would know that it was deregulation and tax breaks that lit it on fire. You are either intentionally misleading or simply that ill informed. I will not argue with you, your TDS is overshadowing your ability to reason. TDS is far more dangerous than Coronavirus, that's for sure......

Crap sites? Link anything you like that is backed by research and data. I literally showed you data of the past 10-20 years worth of economic growth. Yeah, I have no clue how the economy works, please inform me how tax breaks and deregulation are the only two factors in economic growth. Please explain to me how the yield curve inverting twice is a good thing, or how we've been basically flat on index based gains since 2018. Have you seen the VIX? The market is extremely vulnerable right now as we've propped up this bull run for so long and we've exhausted all our tools to stimulate an economy when in a depression.

What reasoning? You literally can't explain anything I have said or what you're talking about. You threw out a few buzz words and believe you know whats going on. Post any sort of research or economic knowledge and I'll be more inclined to believe you aren't just babbling out Fox News talking points.

 

[Tickitty Tock]

Oh That sad orange golfer in chief - you mean elect him for Nuremberg trials 2020 ?

 

[Digital_Synapse]

How about any of you armchair economists explain to me how insane amounts of income inequality, high levels of corporate debt, high levels of household debt, overly centralized manufacturing, decades of crazy low interest rates, and an uncheck bull market, are good for the economy and aren't going to cause a coming recession. The economy is a tinderbox waiting for a match.

Seriously, give me any reason to think you understand how our economy works.

why is inequality bad again?

 

[watisthis]

why is inequality bad again?

"(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity." - John Rawls

Basically, inequality is only to be tolerated as long as the least advantaged person is better off than he would be under total equality.

Income inequality is not bad in itself. To the contrary, it is necessary to incentivize people to work harder, organize better, and educate themselves. However, how 'high' is subjecting, most economics only give you answers that pertain to the economy and not the underlying policy issues with justice, fairness, efficiency, and other socioeconomic issues when we talk of higher income inequality. Here's a good read on that and many other factors.

Our mobility, the ability to move from under 20% quintile to the over 80% quintile is consistent with what you'd expect to see with a collapsing middle class. With an L shaped distribution, there's relatively little difference between the 20th and 80th percentiles compared to the top fraction of the 1%. When we look at data from 1980 to 2012 we see the soaring share of overall income going to the top 1% from 10% in 1980 to 22% in 2012.

Since some systems only function properly if you have money, there is an impossibly frustrating lack of access to medical care and legal representation. Moreover, people look at you with contempt, or worse, people who treat poverty as if its contagious. It's very dehumanizing. What makes this worse? It makes people extremely dysfunctional and unproductive. It's impossible to describe the horrible mental and emotional toll poverty takes on people. It becomes difficult to plan, to behave, to contribute to your survival. Every interaction is a battle and any misstep may put you on the street. The rest of society becomes enemies and threats, not collaborators or friends because you have to win or else you will literally die.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...oor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/

However, I am well off. There are times where I feel disconnected from society as a whole and don't understand what others go through but I do my best to understand the disenfranchised. People and institutions will bend over backwards to help me, it becomes easy to perpetuate my good fortune not through hard work or thoughtfulness, but through political favor and social networking. While this helps me, it doesn't do much for society. This can create pressure to become sloppy, or corrupt, seeing yourself above others, to not contribute to the less fortunate and to exploit and dominate their misfortune.

As a society these two ends, when further and further apart, create less productivity, less consumerism, and become more burdensome on capitalism. A society with a broad middle class maximizes the contribution from each member of the society, while not allowing the ends to lose sight of each other and allowing everyone to contribute, not compete.

Could we all be living a much more fulfilling and financially sound like if wages increased like they were supposed to and large corporations took their fair share of the tax and income burden? Absolutely.

We're living in a post scarcity society, and a lot of jobs that were available and paid a living wage back in the 50s and 60s no longer exist, nor will many now in another decade. With the advent of robotics and the increasingly real possibility that many jobs will be replaced with AI and robots over the next few decades, we''re going to be finding ourselves struggling more and more to capture the few well paying jobs that are left. Not only that, but we'll find ourselves without enough jobs to supply a large population with any work. At that point, we're going to need to make a choice, one that we should have made a long time ago. Do we allow millions of Americans to starve and live their life in poverty, while the rich continue to exploit the middle and lower classes?

Lastly, more on the topic of the economics of it all, I'll give an analogy. There are two types of games, finite and infinite. The purpose of the finite game is to bring the game to an end with a winner. Whereas, the infinite game just continues forever. Economics are similar in this way. The purpose of any economic engine is to perpetuate itself. We like having an economy and everything we do, such as, purchase items, change laws, start businesses, etc, is in an attempt to continue the infinite game. Income inequality brings this game to a dangerous end. Especially in our capitalistic and consumeristic society. Part of our economy is driven on the availability of disposable income. We buy necessities, and then we buy the consumables we enjoy. If the working class has no money to spend on consumables, then the economic engine stalls, and if we don't do something drastic that engine stops. Thus, why we make the rules that perpetuate the infinite game of economics and in order to keep that game going in our capitalist society we need to have a large middle class who has enough money to buy the products we make.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Basically, inequality is only to be tolerated as long as the least advantaged person is better off than he would be under total equality.

Well, seeing as how we are only truly equal when we are all equally dead, inequality should always be tolerated.

You have made about the most asinine and silly argument against income inequality that I have ever seen.

 

[watisthis]

Well, seeing as how we are only truly equal when we are all equally dead, inequality should always be tolerated.

It's a balancing act, no one is saying we will ever have true equality and I had said as much later in the post when I said income inequality is not bad in and of itself. Of course there will always be the have and have nots but to let it get to far one way or the other is inherently bad for the economy and our society. Fair quality of opportunity is a hard concept for you to understand.

You have made about the most asinine and silly argument against income inequality that I have ever seen.

Great retort, you must be far too smart to actually put into words just how asinine it was.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

It's a balancing act, no one is saying we will ever have true equality and I had said as much later in the post when I said income inequality is not bad in and of itself. Of course there will always be the have and have nots but to let it get to far one way or the other is inherently bad for the economy and our society. Fair quality of opportunity is a hard concept for you to understand.



Great retort, you must be far too smart to actually put into words just how asinine it was.

or I am too busy to go and pick all of the fallacies you posted apart and will get around to that later when I have time?

 

[watisthis]

or I am too busy to go and pick all of the fallacies you posted apart and will get around to that later when I have time?

I bet you don't even see your own logical fallacy here.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I bet you don't even see your own logical fallacy here.

while you wait for me to have time to make a thorough post, please, educate me.

 

[watisthis]

Well, seeing as how we are only truly equal when we are all equally dead, inequality should always be tolerated.

You have made about the most asinine and silly argument against income inequality that I have ever seen.

Race Red Mach 1 with a red interior is my sole concern and requirement for '21. It'll look real nice next to my red/red '71 mach 1, a nice round 50 yrs apart.

Well, yeah. Of course it is all some major master plot by our alien lizard overlords who want to overthrow Trump and take our guns.

I received a Tudor for a wedding gift two weeks ago. trying to get used to wearing a watch again. Tudor glamour date all in silver/sst

or I am too busy to go and pick all of the fallacies you posted apart and will get around to that later when I have time?

while you wait for me to have time to make a thorough post, please, educate me.

Your faulty reasoning for not providing an adequate response in the first place seems very flimsy. 'I don't have time to understand you or fallacy, I have so much work to do.'

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Your faulty reasoning for not providing an adequate response in the first place seems very flimsy. 'I don't have time to understand you or fallacy, I have so much work to do.'

having 10 seconds to make a very quick 1 line post/response is very different than a thorough response that takes a few minutes, especially when I am bouncing around on conferance calls adn shit all day.

try again.

 

[watisthis]

having 10 seconds to make a very quick 1 line post/response is very different than a thorough response that takes a few minutes, especially when I am bouncing around on conferance calls adn shit all day.

try again.

This better be a really good response if its taking you 5+ hours. Rather, you could have responded once, thoughtfully, writing a sentence or two every few minutes while you bounce around on conference calls and you wouldn't having to be googling the word fallacy at the moment. Logically, it makes more sense but here we are learning what the word fallacy means.

 

[mavmrb3]

I will say this. You vote for Trump or you vote for Biden. You vote in and propagate the current political paradigm. You can't tell me otherwise that we don't live in a false political left/right dichotomy. I describe the Democratic party as corporate light while the Republican party is corporate medium. If you vote the two party corporate parties you are only voting in further corruption. The politicians don't care for you and don't give a shit. LOL. As the great late George Carlin said, Who owns America?

For November I will be voting for Bullitt 2020! I will also be riding her hard. She is worth my vote!

Sponsored