2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

4,001 to 4,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:
I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b@&!*%%% around, thejeff? Really?

Honestly I'm with Jeff on this one. Usually what people mean when they claim "bad regulation" is "I can't pollute and waste people as I want to make me more money"

basically it's always "bad regulation" until it protects the one complaining and then it's "common sense measures that are needed."


Sissyl wrote:

The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.

As for minimum wages, there is a simple and brutal logic to them. A company forced to pay more than they would have to if they outsourced their production would outsource their production. In that situation, you have to either force the company to stay in the country (sound familiar?) or you have to make domestic workers more useful to the company somehow. It is not an easy question how to solve this.

The bad credit bundles were a result of lack of regulation in the market due in large part to deregulation requested by the market. I really don't trust the market to decide what should and should not be regulated.


Sissyl,

It might help your case, yes.

Also I'm not against the free market if you guys give me money for free to market on Paizo. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more. Free markets with regulations that reflect those making up the market are going to gravitate toward protectionism and monopoly to protect the interests of those already in the market.

In general, free markets are terrific — for those with the ability to participate in said free markets. For those who don't, well, FYGM is the standard refrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.
Near as I can tell, that's a myth. Due you have a source.

Snopes mentions duck eggs in France being a common variation of a debunked cabbage memo word count that apparently dates back to the 40s.


Sissyl wrote:

The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

We have a good deal of experience with that. Just look up the history that led to the famous Anti-Trust suits and the breaking up of US Steel. We also have an ongoing lesson with the financiers of Wall Street. Unregulated capitolism pretty much follows the evolution as predicted by Karl Marx.


So, in other news... Trump seems to have directed money owed to him towards his foundation. ("Charity" seems inappropriate now.)

This is legal... but with certain stipulations. Namely, if it's supposed to be income, then it's supposed to be taxed.

Note that his Foundation has also apparently been used for things like paying off his debts and buying things he wants. There is a definite possibility of trying to use this for tax avoidance, although I'm not sure the evidence is solid enough to bring fines or charges. On the fishy smell meter, though, this is surströmming.


2 ggs 2 mms AND an umlot. That must be bad


Hmm... wait, I think it's just one g. How'd that extra get in there? o_O


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Take a shot every second, constantly, until you pass out. It's the only way to protect your brain cells.
Or you could just hang out and not watch it. That's my plan.

Can't skip. Trump might eat me. Can't skip. Trump might eat me.


I have fried chicken warming in the oven. I'm most of the way through my first 11oz bottle of Full Sail Session Cream Ale; never had it before, but it's quite refreshing.


Sissyl wrote:
I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b@&!*%%% around, thejeff? Really?

Only if you care about me giving your claim any credence.

I poked around and found the same reference Caineach did, but nothing clearly stating the details about EU duck egg regulations, so I figured I'd give the opportunity to back your claim up.

If you don't, I'll continue to assume it's nonsense. If you want to persuade people, I suggest using examples you can back up.

I'm sure there's plenty of bad regulation out there. I'm also sure a good chunk of it is under regulation, not just over regulation.


What if campaign finance reform mandated $$$ matching toward the national debt? Wanna spot a candidate $10m? $10m to kill the debt.

Or maybe just pure fundraising -- candidate that gets the most money to pay off the debt gets the office.

(Of course, incoprorate a trickle-up pattern -- local office pays local debt, surplus to state, surplus to nation)

Just spitballing.

EDIT: yes, i know it's ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


I poked around and found the same reference Caineach did, but nothing clearly stating the details about EU duck egg regulations, so I figured I'd give the opportunity to back your claim up.

If you don't, I'll continue to assume it's nonsense. If you want to persuade people, I suggest using examples you can back up.

Yeah, "overregulation" is a pretty standard myth. I don't know anything about duck eggs specifically, but Brexit, The Movie had a lengthy section about regulations about pillowcases (9 regs), pillows (109 regs), alarm clocks (11 regs), etc. Of course, "The figures are pretty dodgy, however: film-makers appear to have taken these numbers through doing a simple search of the EU’s legal database, then using the number of hits as their figures. Many of the results have nothing to do with regulations about those particular products, they just mention the search term."

This, of course, is a typical political advertisement technique, because who's going to actually go looking through at the EU regs to see whether all 109 "pillow regulations" actually address pillows (some address breakfast cereal, instead, but the word "pillow" is used in the regulation), or even whether there are 109 of them.

But it also means that an unsupported claim about how bad EU regulations are is presumed false (at least by me) until demonstrated otherwise.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
What if campaign finance reform mandated $$$ matching toward the national debt?

Given that the national debt is not in any way, shape, or form a problem, this would be like campaign finance reform mandating lawn care. Donate $10 million dollars, and you have to mow your lawn that weekend. Donate $20MM and you need to aerate as well.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
What if campaign finance reform mandated $$$ matching toward the national debt?
Given that the national debt is not in any way, shape, or form a problem, this would be like campaign finance reform mandating lawn care. Donate $10 million dollars, and you have to mow your lawn that weekend. Donate $20MM and you need to aerate as well.

OTOH, if it only applied to the big donors and essentially doubled the cost of political donations, I'd be cool with it.

Completely not practical, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
What if campaign finance reform mandated $$$ matching toward the national debt?
Given that the national debt is not in any way, shape, or form a problem, this would be like campaign finance reform mandating lawn care. Donate $10 million dollars, and you have to mow your lawn that weekend. Donate $20MM and you need to aerate as well.

Indeed, it is actually assanine that we even track "national debt." We spend money into creation and destroy money via taxation. There is absolutely no reason those two numbers need to match.


BigDTBone wrote:


Indeed, it is actually assanine that we even track "national debt." We spend money into creation and destroy money via taxation. There is absolutely no reason those two numbers need to match.

Half right. Tax money actually circulates; in some cases, it's the only way that money gets back into circulation (e.g., estate tax or the UK version, "death duties"). Here's a breakdown of revenue and expenses for last year.


Builder ups the ante in the war against Trump sign thefts


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Indeed, it is actually assanine that we even track "national debt." We spend money into creation and destroy money via taxation. There is absolutely no reason those two numbers need to match.
Half right. Tax money actually circulates; in many case, it's the only way that money gets back into circulation in some cases (e.g., estate tax). Here's a breakdown of revenue and expenses for last year.

Yes and no. For convenience's sake, that's true. It makes the accounting simpler.

Practically speaking though, it works just as well if the government destroyed money when it was collected and created it again when it needed to spend.
Taxing is important - the estate tax is especially important for controlling hereditary power. It would be sound policy even if we took all the proceeds and set them on fire.

Which by the way, wraps back around to the election: Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax. Clinton wants to increase it, while still leaving a huge exemption.


She does want to lower the age, though not nearly as much as she should.

Is there any economic logic behind the estate tax besides, "When I'm a multimillionaire, I want to leave every cent to my kid"?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

She does want to lower the age, though not nearly as much as she should.

Is there any economic logic behind the estate tax besides, "When I'm a multimillionaire, I want to leave every cent to my kid"?

"lower the age"?

And I assume you mean behind not having an estate tax? The exemption makes sense - to avoid having to sell off real assets and the like, though it probably doesn't need to be as high as it is.


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Tax money actually circulates; in many case, it's the only way that money gets back into circulation in some cases (e.g., estate tax). Here's a breakdown of revenue and expenses for last year.

Yes and no. For convenience's sake, that's true. It makes the accounting simpler.

Practically speaking though, it works just as well if the government destroyed money when it was collected and created it again when it needed to spend.

Er,.... no. That's why we (and most sensibly run countries) have an independent central bank. Technically speaking, the US government doesn't create money, the Fed does (and it also destroys money when the loans it uses to create money are paid off). The whole purpose of that setup is to ensure that monetary policy is independent of the current government's policies and it creates another barrier to a kleptocratic government just creating money for the benefits of its friends.

If you think crony capitalism is bad now, you should be thanking your stars for the existence of the Fed. There's a limit to how much money the government can spend directly (and it's limited, ultimately, by the amount of money the Fed is willing to conjure into existence). Since the Fed is a bipartisan group (although of course it's more likely to listen to bankers than to grocers), it tends to act as a flywheel on the various turns and twists of the elections....


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Is there any economic logic behind the estate tax besides, "When I'm a multimillionaire, I want to leave every cent to my kid"?

It is one of the most effective (long-term) methods of reducing economic inequality. For example, it did an extremely good job of breaking up the large estates in the UK between 1900 and 2000. Prior to 1900, some absurd percentage of the real property in the UK was owned by something like 200 families; the landed gentry have been forced to sell off a lot of their farms and villages (which puts land into the hands people who would otherwise have been their tenants, and also lets the former tenants benefit from the ownership [and appreciation] of the land).

And, as I said, it puts assets into circulation. There's much more incentive to improve your own cottage (that you own yourself) than there is to put a similar improvement into a cottage your family has rented out for five hundred years. The local DIY shop and carpenters will appreciate that.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Drink!

Who's watching/watched?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Take a shot every second, constantly, until you pass out. It's the only way to protect your brain cells.
Or you could just hang out and not watch it. That's my plan.
Can't skip. Trump might eat me. Can't skip. Trump might eat me.

I'm pretty sure you should worry about him nuking stuff than him eating you...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We have another thread for that, but I'm watching. o wo/


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Indeed, it is actually assanine that we even track "national debt." We spend money into creation and destroy money via taxation. There is absolutely no reason those two numbers need to match.
Half right. Tax money actually circulates; in some cases, it's the only way that money gets back into circulation (e.g., estate tax or the UK version, "death duties"). Here's a breakdown of revenue and expenses for last year.

Yeah, that's a wink and a nod from an accountant. In every practical sense money is created as the government spends it out of the ether and it is destroyed as the government sequesters it from circulation via taxation. Any other "accounting" about how one relates to the other is a cute trick politicians play to justify their policy.


A completely free market is a bad idea.

A completely planned market is a bad idea.

Any reasonable debate is about where the best balance lies. Anyone who doesn't realize that is best ignored.


This means that some 18 percent of the electorate is undecided, compared to only 6 percent at this point four years ago.


thunderspirit wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more. Free markets with regulations that reflect those making up the market are going to gravitate toward protectionism and monopoly to protect the interests of those already in the market.

In general, free markets are terrific — for those with the ability to participate in said free markets. For those who don't, well, FYGM is the standard refrain.

How lucky for all of us then that everyone in a society participates in the market. Seriously, you think the market is just something the bankers do?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find liberalism/free market to be quite similar to oil in a mechanism (say an engine).

If you do not have enough oil, the mechanism grips, explodes and dies.

If you have too much oil, the mechanism turns uselessly and you go nowhere.

If you have only oil ...

That said, I am from Socialist France ;-P

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more. Free markets with regulations that reflect those making up the market are going to gravitate toward protectionism and monopoly to protect the interests of those already in the market.

In general, free markets are terrific — for those with the ability to participate in said free markets. For those who don't, well, FYGM is the standard refrain.

How lucky for all of us then that everyone in a society participates in the market. Seriously, you think the market is just something the bankers do?

Not all people participate equally in the market. And definitely not all benefit from it fairly. One of the main problem with economic models is that they can only guess at how the money will flow through society. If you have a lot of money flowing freely, it is better than if it does not flow, because more people will benefit from its passage in their pockets.

However, it appears that even with a completely fluid flow of money, some people only benefit very tangentially from it, or even close to not at all. In other words, the money flows freely but not in those people's pockets.

I would love for a study some day to see where the money flows through society when you inject it in the market.


Fairly? Why expect the market to be fair when the states can't even make the courts and the police fair? Justice and fairness are very, very difficult things to obtain. The market isn't fair. It is a reflection of humanity with all its pettiness, foibles and stupidity. Not everyone has the option of participating properly, like the mentally handicapped just to mention one such group, and for them there should absolutely be support outside the market.

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
Fairly? Why expect the market to be fair when the states can't even make the courts and the police fair? Justice and fairness are very, very difficult things to obtain. The market isn't fair. It is a reflection of humanity with all its pettiness, foibles and stupidity. Not everyone has the option of participating properly, like the mentally handicapped just to mention one such group, and for them there should absolutely be support outside the market.

Support outside the market is one way of doing it. Regulations (or the lack thereof) are also ways of orienting how the market works and who benefits from it. Both are tools at the disposal of governments to bring more justice to society, thereby enhancing its sustainability.

The first step however is to get rid of the very short term mentality that developed in the market and the society in the past 30 years.


The Raven Black wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Fairly? Why expect the market to be fair when the states can't even make the courts and the police fair? Justice and fairness are very, very difficult things to obtain. The market isn't fair. It is a reflection of humanity with all its pettiness, foibles and stupidity. Not everyone has the option of participating properly, like the mentally handicapped just to mention one such group, and for them there should absolutely be support outside the market.

Support outside the market is one way of doing it. Regulations (or the lack thereof) are also ways of orienting how the market works and who benefits from it. Both are tools at the disposal of governments to bring more justice to society, thereby enhancing its sustainability.

The first step however is to get rid of the very short term mentality that developed in the market and the society in the past 30 years.

Not only is it not going to happen, we now have automation in the stock market with machines that can react to trends in microseconds. As I recall it was just such devices that contributed to a mega stock crash in the Rama novels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


The first step however is to get rid of the very short term mentality that developed in the market and the society in the past 30 years.

Not only is it not going to happen, we now have automation in the stock market with machines that can react to trends in microseconds. As I recall it was just such devices that contributed to a mega stock crash in the Rama novels.

Actually, there are a number of proposals being considered in various jurisdictions that would address this issue.

One is simply adjusting the tax rates for "short term" and "long term" trading. Right now (in the US), short term (capital) gains and losses are taxed at ordinary income rates, while long term gains/losses are taxed at about half that. This, in theory, encourages people (and corporations) to look to the long term for their money, because they keep more of it. Simply by raising the short-term tax rate, people would be discouraged from trying to make their money by bungee jumping into the market.

A more strident proposal is a financial transaction tax, essentially a tax on high-frequency trading. If everyone pays a penny per stock share traded, the effects on the mom-and-pop buy-and-hold types would be negligible (in fact, it would probably be less than the amount they pay in trading fees to even a discount broker), but the autotraders that move millions of shares in milliseconds to profit from a tenth of a cent arbitrage opportunity would see their income vanish under the fees. Personally, I think this is a very good idea, as it both provides a new and extremely progressive income stream to the government while discouraging behavior with a track record of very strong negative externalities.

Perhaps needless to say, if you think that automation in the stock market is a problem, you should look into whether or not any solutions have been proposed, and which candidates have been proposing those solutions.....


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Perhaps needless to say, if you think that automation in the stock market is a problem, you should look into whether or not any solutions have been proposed, and which candidates have been proposing those solutions.....

Neither to my knowledge, has said a Peep. Both are too obliged to Wall Street insiders who have a vested interest in the status quo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Perhaps needless to say, if you think that automation in the stock market is a problem, you should look into whether or not any solutions have been proposed, and which candidates have been proposing those solutions.....
Neither to my knowledge, has said a Peep.

Then your knowledge is incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hillary has proposed a financial transaction tax. It's less aggressive than the one Bernie proposed, but still significant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I find liberalism/free market to be quite similar to oil in a mechanism (say an engine).

If you do not have enough oil, the mechanism grips, explodes and dies.

If you have too much oil, the mechanism turns uselessly and you go nowhere.

Per my dad*, too much oil will damage an engine: damaged seals, too much pressure (oil compresses far less than air) on moving parts, oil possibly getting into/being forced into places it wasn't meant to, etc.

* Answered by him over a decade ago, so I might have details wrong. I Am Not A Mechanic.


20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.


Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The republicans like the 50s so much I'm sure they'd be happy to have that tax code from when America was great.


thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.

131-odd members of this Congress co-sponsored the bill from the looks of that article. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P

Maybe Anklebiter is really Julian Assange? :)


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P

Yes it does! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P
Maybe Anklebiter is really Julian Assange? :)

Hey, hey, HEY!! Commie goblins have more self-respect than that. ;)


Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P
Maybe Anklebiter is really Julian Assange? :)
Hey, hey, HEY!! Commie goblins have more self-respect than that. ;)

It would tie in with his anti-Clinton crusade.

4,001 to 4,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards