|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I think we largely agree, given that my major condition was "not a criminal."
Agreed...I definitely meant something along the lines of "if you have sufficient wealth," but it may well not be worth bothering.
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back: Anyone under, say, 30, that is healthy and has no criminal record should be able to get a work visa. That work visa should then offer a path to citizenship, but a felony should result in deportation and cancellation of the visa.
We NEED healthy young people for our workforce. Let's make them legitimate, tax (and serve) them, and treat them like what 99% of them are: Good people.
I am aware.
There is no mechanism for the national debt to suddenly come crashing down and plunge us in to hyperinflation... so no, that isn't a 'more complete' analogy.
Of COURSE there is -- it's called perception. If the world decides we're no longer a good investment, even servicing our existing debt level would do it.
We desperately need higher inflation. We should be borrowing (yes, that's right, INCREASING the national debt) to pay for infrastructure improvements at the currently low rates... rather than waiting until we have to pay more for the same work. We should be doing everything we can to generate economic growth and the higher inflation which comes with it. Once we get up to a decent inflation rate THEN we can start to look at reigning in the economy, but doing so before then is every bit as harmful as allowing inflation to run amok.
You're right...we should be investing in infrastructure. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we need to borrow to do it.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Sure. For starters:
Defense spending is ludicrously high. I'm not an isolationist, but we need to quit playing world cop. I'd cut this to 50% within ten years. The potential savings from defense contracts alone are astronomical.
Cut, cut, cut the amount we spend to imprison our own people. I'd release the vast majority of non-violent offenders, drug and otherwise. We'd need fewer prosecutors, prisons, prison guards, etc.
Social security should phase out if you have excessive income. Yup, I went there. They also need to raise the full retirement age to reflect longer lifespans.
Corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax loopholes needs to go.
Stop wasting money deporting people and militarizing our border. Let every healthy person of working age that wants to work her do so.
Socialized medicine. Wait, you say...that's spending. Only it really isn't by the time you take the profit out of healthcare (which is a morally repugnant idea, anyway).
Dramatically cut the salary and benefits of elected officials, especially Congress.
To be fair, I'd make other changes on the revenue side, and I'd actually spend *more* on some things (education, infrastructure), but those things are really beyond the scope of your question.
Now when I look at them I wonder if they're just going to decide to antagonize then murder me or my son or my wife too for that matter. For no good reason. Because thats's what they're doing. It only seems worse because there's video of everything now. And people like Nenkota Moon would be defending them unilaterally saying that we had it coming because...REASONS.
But how dare you suggest the actual reason: You're black.
The sad truth is that would have gone down very differently if it had been a white girl.
Inflation is a possible side effect of economic stimulation, but I don't believe we've been trying to cause inflation, per se.
Semantics aside, your analogy would be more complete if you mentioned the fifty-million gallon tank of water we have hanging over our heads in the form of the national debt.
What you're referring to is the end of US Dollars as the world's reserve currency (many observers tend to think that is a matter of when, rather than if -- but that's another thread).
In effect, it is in everyone's best interest to prop our currency up...but should it become too painful, make no mistake: They'll cut their losses. Our currency is not special, and we can absolutely devalue it if we're too lax with the money supply. I frankly don't understand what appears to be magical thinking to the contrary.
But again, agree to disagree. There are any number of professional economists on either side of this issue. Which reminds me of an old joke: If you laid all of the world's economists end to end, what would you never reach? A conclusion.
I don't know if we're near that point, but I do know that I don't want to find out the hard way. :)
I will say that things seem to go from "nowhere near that point" to "past that point" frightening quickly. We are, after all, talking about a matter of perception.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Agree to disagree. "Print enough dollars to meet any demand" is exactly what would cause hyper-inflation: More and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.
I think it makes sense to question whether we're anywhere near that point -- as thejeff does -- but in my opinion it's pretty clear that such a point exists.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Please understand: I'm not stuffing gold doubloons into my pillowcase just yet. ;-)
But many an economy has collapsed due to hyper-inflation brought on by bad monetary policy decisions...decisions often made in an (ill-fated) attempt to alleviate an untenable level of debt. I have yet to see a coherent argument why our economy would be any different.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You fail macroeconomics forever. You don't run a nation's budget the way you do a households. Because the first is not simply a scaled up version of the latter.
So I keep hearing. But I never we should. And I actually got in A in Macro. :P
Here's the problem: If our debt-to-GDP becomes high enough that the world loses confidence in our ability to repay our debts, then we're stuck with a bunch of maturing bonds that we can only pay by taking our new debt a drastically inflated -- and ruinous -- rates. "Printing" money to address the problem merely speeds the cycle.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I didn't mean to insinuate mental or cognitive instability. I meant to state that his criteria for the selection of a candidate -- as you have reported it -- appears to be lacking.
I also acknowledged that he was being sincere in reporting his motivations, which I thought was the point of your post, no?
Of course, of course, I'm a big giant racist for believing in dissenting thought. I should just agree with you on all on topics. I'm just a big racist because it fits the narrative you make in your head. I'm the one that needs to see a psych, I have the problem. Only liberals have opinion that matters.
Get over yourself.
We all believe in your right to hold and express an opinion. Just as we have a right to respond to that opinion. No one is going to arrest you for being wrong, but you can be damn sure they're going to tell you you're wrong. That's the entire point of free speech.
You're not the victim. That would be the girl on the bike.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm not really into calling people racist, regardless of whether or not I think they are. I call their positions racist. I ignore them. I flag them. But directly calling someone racist doesn't do much to elevate discussion. They start to see it as an insult, instead of a descriptor.
You're right, of course.
My post was immature and I have removed it.
1. I'm clearly still here. You can tell, because we're exchanging messages.2. Not any dissenting opinion...just the racist ones.
That you apparently believe that serves as evidence that your position isn't racist is rather telling.
But yeah, Fergie. I'm done here.
They didnt assault her at all. How about this, when a cop questions you next time, you tell him to f@#$ off and walk away.
What is wrong with you? THEY PERPPER-SPRAYED A CHILD FOR CONVENIENCE AND/OR AMUSEMENT!
I strongly suspect you'd feel differently if that child was yours. Or even simply had the good sense to NOT BE BLACK. >:(
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Don't forget it was a child, for god's sake. But then those hood rats aren't really children, right Nenkota?
Pardon me while I go vomit.
My bad. I was being sarcastic, but apparently that wasn't obvious.
That was a child. Who had apparently collided with a car on her bike. The police escalated the conflict (the opposite of what they're supposed to) for no apparent reason. Then they PEPPER-SPRAYED a child who was zero threat to anyone, which was completely unnecessary. Or maybe you think she's lucky they didn't just shoot her? Is that clear enough sarcasm for you?
She likely had very good reasons to fear the police going in...now she has one more.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
For lack of a better term, it's pretty much a "no go" for me, for a few reasons. For one, I'm vehemently against the idea of the government at any level being able to take away constitutionally protected rights without the scrutinized person being able to defend themselves in a court of law. I would say the same thing if it was suggested that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't be able to speak publicly. Not only is this an issue of defending currently protected rights, but also one of not opening the floodgates to thought police (it's not a big leap to go from arbitrarily suspending one right to another). I don't say that from under a tin-foil hat thinking that big brother is out to get me, but rather from an observation of similar progressions in other western countries.
Agree about not abridging rights without due process. The obvious answer is to amend the Constitution. After all, much of the rest of the developed world seems to get along just fine without guns (and it wasn't lost on me that your example didn't deal with firearms).
Sadly, we can't agree on something like funding Zika virus prevention, let alone a controversial Constitutional amendment.
Scott Betts wrote:
That's kinda beside the point, Scott. Which is that vandalism, aside from being totally unacceptable, is unlikely to change anyone's mind.
Yeah, it seems highly likely to me that we're looking at causation, not simply correlation as Scott seems to be suggesting.
To clarify my earlier comment, I don't feel marginalized in the presidential election because of Donald and Hillary. I feel marginalized because the electoral college gerrymanders my vote into irrelevance. If I want my vote to have even the chance of an effect, I would need to move to a different state. That is a piss poor example of democracy. Also, I'm not proud of any of this, but it is reality.
Agreed on the electoral college. It needs to go.
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.
It may not be bought, but it is for sale. :-(
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dude, I get that you're frustrated -- many people are -- but sabotage rarely ends well. You alluded to several more productive ways to channel your frustration just a few posts ago.
Besides, NOT voting looks just like apathy, which plays right into the hands of those corporate masters you mentioned...
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You know what happens to countries that have a voter turnout so low as to be meaningless? The elections are considered a scam, and the rest of the world takes notice.
And what, pray tell, does the rest of the world DO about it, besides noticing? And do we really want to find ourselves in that position?
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.
Wonderful! Have at it! I'm even willing to help. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed.
If you have a viable alternative, I'm all ears.
And for the record, I'm probably the last person that would be accused of being pro-corporation. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Of course, because silencing any dissent is the only good thing to do.
...said no one in this thread. But we've been having the same argument for pages and page.
Your dislike of the choice we face -- Clinton vs. Trump -- is irrelevant. On November 8th, one or the other of these people will be elected president. That may suck, but that's how it is.
If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?
Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.