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.
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.
|
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Of course, of course, I'm a big giant racist for believing in dissenting thought.
Dissention for its own sake is rather foolish. I firmly believe that arsenic-eating is dangerous and should be avoided; do you dissent from THAT belief, too?
I also firmly believe that young black girls have the absolute right, granted by the First Amendment, to say "f^& you" to a cop. Oddly enough, the Federal court system shares that belief. You obviously dissent from that.
There are a lot of possible reasons why you might dissent, but few of them are in any way admirable.
O' shut up.
Interesting. So, despite your stated preference for free speech, you're the first one to actually tell anyone to "shut up."
Oh well.
I'm gonna go lurk in the Threadlock Refugee thread and browse the Total Wine website.
Guys can we please not threadlock this thread? Either take it to another thread or just don't reply, or flag it and move on.
Guys can we please not threadlock this thread? Either take it to another thread or just don't reply, or flag it and move on.
Good advice. As usual, I've let my frustration get the better of me. My apologies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's more than enough, gang.
NenkotaMoon expressed his take clearly and in a non-prejudicial manner (on the point of racism), indicating a "resisting arrest" take.
A number of perspectives were likewise expressed, and clearly so, that took umbrage with the measure of applied force.
Both are legitimate.
Revisiting a past bit i posted: a regular customer visited the shop yesterday, and i briefly continued my informal poll. The individual questioned is a white male, small business owner, with his operation located in an area heavily weighted toward African American population, reflected in his clientele. His biggest reason for choosing Trump over Hillary -- economic policy.
Not surprising, him wanting a tax cut (in theory). Right?
EDIT: argh! ninja'd!
EDIT 2: ninja'd by my *phone*!
EDIT 3: can't *type*, either!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's clearly more to sound economic policy than cutting taxes. So if his position is really as simple as "vote for the guy who says he is going to cut my taxes," then I would question his judgement, not his motivation. YMMV.
Particularly as Trump is not going to cut our taxes, in all plausibility.
I'd be kind of curious what elements of his economic policy. I mean I get the appeal of tax cuts, but the cuts Trump proposes are by far aimed at people who likely are way above the gentleman's income bracket, and cutting taxes while bigging a ginormous wall means that somewhere else is going to suffer cuts, which might impact his community in other ways.
Particularly as Trump is not going to cut our taxes, in all plausibility.
No, but I'm duly impressed. And I also kinda want to buy you a new keyboard. :P
Frankly, my take on the situation would let's not cut anyone's taxes just yet. Instead, let's cut spending until we balance the budget, then use any surplus we might realize to pay down the debt. Because I do not believe that we as a nation so exceptional that NO amount of debt is problematic.
I'm cheating occasionally with ctrl-v. It's driving KC crazy, as I find dignity in my skill at typing. Now my typing is horrid. Bah!
bugleyman --
I am not trying to justify a Trump vote, nor comment upon the specifics of economic necessity. This is simply a "reporting" effort.
I do not think that this individual's secondhand opinion merits a response that insinuates mental/cognitive instability, eh?
Frankly, my take on the situation would let's not cut anyone's taxes just yet. Instead, let's cut spending until we balance the budget, then use any surplus we might realize to pay down the debt. Because I do not believe that we as a nation so exceptional that NO amount of debt is problematic.
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.
bugleyman --
I am not trying to justify a Trump vote, nor comment upon the specifics of economic necessity. This is simply a "reporting" effort.
I do not think that this individual's secondhand opinion merits a response that insinuates mental/cognitive instability, eh?
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?
I'd be kind of curious what elements of his economic policy.
As I believe I mentioned upthread, there's a lot of wishful thinking involved in a lot of support for Republican/Tea Party economic policy. And there's also a lot of good, old-fashioned ignorance. Economics is hard, a lot of it is non-intuitive, and there are a lot of people who make a lot of money off economic ignorance, so there are a lot of people actively peddling nonsense.
(ETA: Ninja'ed on this very thread by bugleyman's example above!)
Just as a simple example, running a country is not like running a household. There's a lot of quite unnecessary panic about the national debt and the US "not being able to pay its debt," which is literally ridiculous. The United States borrows in dollars and can create them at will; if for some reason it needed a trillion more dollars tomorrow, it could and would simply conjure them out of thin air. I can't do that for my personal account.
There's also a common fear that it's bad to have China (or whoever) buying US treasuries, essentially lending money to the US government, because we need to pay them back, and they'll foreclose if we don't. This is ludicrous for several reasons, of which the first is that we will always have the money to pay them back (see previous paragraph). The second is that there's nothing to foreclose on; the terms of the debt are laid out when the bonds are sold, and there's no underlying security that the Chinese would have a claim to. (In other words, bonds aren't like mortgages.)
For some reason, people are quite comfortable not knowing how their refrigerator works, and won't even pretend to knowledge they don't have. But a lot of people think they know more about economic policy than they do, because they've successfully run a business or a household. Unfortunately, that knowledge doesn't transfer well....
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.
bugleyman --
I am not trying to justify a Trump vote, nor comment upon the specifics of economic necessity. This is simply a "reporting" effort.
I do not think that this individual's secondhand opinion merits a response that insinuates mental/cognitive instability, eh?
questioning someones judgement on an issue doesn't necessarily imply that the person themselves are somehow mentally unstable, so I don't think bugleyman was going there.
Pretty much every person on the planet, including all the posters here, have some sort of cognitive biases or topics they remain poorly informed on, either willingly or accidentally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:)
I can only say that I am not responsible for any failed Perception rolls -- their dice are their own!
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.
... or solves it. Remember that the Fed has been unable to get inflation up to its goal for the past seven years or so. Low inflation is actually a problem right now.
Frankly, my take on the situation would let's not cut anyone's taxes just yet. Instead, let's cut spending until we balance the budget, then use any surplus we might realize to pay down the debt. Because I do not believe that we as a nation so exceptional that NO amount of debt is problematic.
Personally, I think Ronald's tax cuts were always meant to be temporary, and I think we aught to raise taxes on them back to a normal level. We need to cut spending on our military and start investing in human rights, better police training, etc.
You fail macroeconomics forever.Frankly, my take on the situation would let's not cut anyone's taxes just yet. Instead, let's cut spending until we balance the budget, then use any surplus we might realize to pay down the debt. Because I do not believe that we as a nation so exceptional that NO amount of debt is problematic.
Hey, Moonrunner, take a step back. Where do you expect comments like this to take the discussion?
... or solves it. Remember that the Fed has been unable to get inflation up to its goal for the past seven years or so. Low inflation is actually a problem right now.
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.
Please understand...I'm not stuffing gold doubloons into my pillow case just yet. ;-)
But many an economy has collapsed due to hyper-inflation brought on by bad monetary policy decisions, decisions often made in an attempt to alleviate an untenable national debt. I have yet to see a coherent argument explaining why our economy would be any different.
The main factor of difference is the currency in which the debt is denominated. The most famous example is the German debt after WWI, which was set by treaty at 132 billion gold marks. (The gold standard is a bad idea for any number of reasons, this is one.) Germany didn't have the specie reserves to pay it off and couldn't print gold. Similarly,
The US doesn't run a specie currency and can print enough dollars to meet any demand.
Most of the other examples you'll find (e.g. Zimbabwe) involve kleptocrats destroying the economy. In this case, the hyperinflation is a result instead of a cause of economic chaos. (I also think most of the Zimbabwe debt was owed in US dollars as well...)
The main factor of difference is the currency in which the debt is denominated. The most famous example is the German debt after WWI, which was set by treaty at 132 billion gold marks. (The gold standard is a bad idea for any number of reasons, this is one.) Germany didn't have the specie reserves to pay it off and couldn't print gold. Similarly,
The US doesn't run a specie currency and can print enough dollars to meet any demand.
Most of the other examples you'll find (e.g. Zimbabwe) involve kleptocrats destroying the economy. In this case, the hyperinflation is a result instead of a cause of economic chaos. (I also think most of the Zimbabwe debt was owed in US dollars as well...)
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please understand: I'm not stuffing gold doubloons into my pillowcase just yet. ;-)
Why not? Have you thought nothing of the future adventurers who may someday be rifling through your bedroom looking for loot, in the post-apocalyptic wasteland?
Yes, you're correct. IF that happens, it'll be bad.
The question is: Are we anywhere near that point? I see no evidence of it.
It's actually likely that a policy of balancing the budget would hurt the economy sufficiently that our debt to GDP ratio would actually grow - even if we stopped adding to debt. Which would be hard, since the falling economy would cut revenues, forcing further cuts, and so on into a downward spiral.
I believe our deficit, both as a ratio of GDP and even in real dollars, is less than it was a few years ago. That's what economic recovery does, sluggish though it might be.If you really want to cut the deficit, forget cutting spending, deal with the trade deficit. Economy = public deficit + private deficit + trade. Kill the public deficit with a negative trade balance and the only way to keep the economy going is for private debt to grow.
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.
Agree to disagree. "Print enough dollars to meet any demand" is exactly what causes hyper-inflation: More and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.The main factor of difference is the currency in which the debt is denominated. The most famous example is the German debt after WWI, which was set by treaty at 132 billion gold marks. (The gold standard is a bad idea for any number of reasons, this is one.) Germany didn't have the specie reserves to pay it off and couldn't print gold. Similarly,
The US doesn't run a specie currency and can print enough dollars to meet any demand.
Er, no. I agree that that can cause inflation, but you get hyper-inflation precisely because you can't print money fast enough to satisfy demand.
Specifically, if you owe US dollars, but are printing Ruritanian crowns, you need to print enough new crowns to cover your debt. But the act of printing new crowns lowers the value of the existing crowns (relative to the US dollar), which in turn means you need to print more crowns, and you get a vicious feedback cycle that essentially means the amount that you need to print goes up as fast or faster than you can print it.
If, however, you owe in Ruritanian crowns, you can always pay those off at the rate of one crown per crown. Even if the value of the crown decreases, that simply means that the people who have loaned you money take a loss.
So, again, the key is whether you can control the amount of the debt; and that's the difference between inflation and hyper-inflation.
Yes, the US might suffer inflation, but it can't suffer hyperinflation until and unless it owes substantial amounts of money in a currency other than dollars. As long as most of the major markets (especially oil) are denominated in dollars, and as long as US issues debt in dollars, that's not an issue. And for either of those to change would require some serious policy mistakes on the part of the US government, which would in and of themselves demand fixes long before hyperinflation was an issue. We could crash the world economy (indeed, we did in 2009) but people would still be borrowing money and pricing international goods in dollars.
ETA: Here's another way to look at it. Let's assume that the US devalues the dollar a hundredfold; a new dollar is worth one old cent. Cash reserves are wiped out, savers and lenders take a 99 percent haircut, cats and dogs living together,.... and so forth.
But what would be the interest rate expectations going forward? The US economy still produces stuff. Dairy farmers still produce milk, and chocolate manufacturers still buy it, albeit at 100x the old cost. The farmers, in turn, still buy cattle feed at a much increased price, but there's no continuing pressure demanding more money in circulation. Inflation expectations going forward are actually reasonable, and the US economy is diverse enough that it can still produce and sell goods domestically and keep running.
And now everyone's debt-free, so the US doesn't have old debt hanging over it.
Even in this worst-case scenario, you get a brief burst of serious inflation, but then normalcy and a functioning economy. That's not hyper-inflation. You get hyperinflation when even this type of serious devaluation doesn't address your debt problems. And that won't happen in the US.
Why not? Have you thought nothing of the future adventurers who may someday be rifling through your bedroom looking for loot, in the post-apocalyptic wasteland?Please understand: I'm not stuffing gold doubloons into my pillowcase just yet. ;-)
Clearly, bugleyman has no regard for the hard-working blue-collar murderhobo, just trying to earn a living to support themselves and only themselves.
|
bugleyman, how about this... would it be reasonable to not worry about hyperinflation until the inflation rate is at least close to what we have been trying to raise it to for the past decade?
Put another way... yes, it is possible for people to drown, but when you are dying of dehydration in a barren desert it shouldn't be your primary concern.
*No! No! Keep that glass of water away! I don't want to drown!*
Beyond this profits are actually the primary cause of inflation.
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.
bugleyman, how about this... would it be reasonable to not worry about hyperinflation until the inflation rate is at least close to what we have been trying to raise it to for the past decade?
Put another way... yes, it is possible for people to drown, but when you are dying of dehydration in a barren desert it shouldn't be your primary concern.
*No! No! Keep that glass of water away! I don't want to drown!*
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.
Lets do ourselves a favor:
If you suggest spending cuts list out where you think those cuts should come from. If not specific programs then at minimum the departments you think can take the cuts (break it out more if you want, for example military hardware as opposed to military pay and training if you like).
Simply calling for "cuts" by itself is basically useless.
|
|
Inflation is a possible side effect of economic stimulation, but I don't believe we've been trying to cause inflation, per se.
The U.S. Federal Reserve targets a 2% inflation rate.
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.
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.
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.
I admit. I'm racist. I hate gnomes. :p
*is pretty sure that's going to get me banned...*
Lets do ourselves a favor:
If you suggest spending cuts list out where you think those cuts should come from. If not specific programs then at minimum the departments you think can take the cuts (break it out more if you want, for example military hardware as opposed to military pay and training if you like).
Simply calling for "cuts" by itself is basically useless.
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.
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.
Inflation is a possible side effect of economic stimulation, but I don't believe we've been trying to cause inflation, per se.The FED has an official inflation target of 2%.
Some inflation is good for the economy. Encourages investment rather than hoarding.
I am aware.