Forum Settings
Forums

After Iowa and NH victories BERNIE is the national Front runner!

Pages (2) « 1 [2]
Post New Reply
Feb 13, 6:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 337
--ALEX-- said:
LMAO at Trump fans trying their HARDEST to pretend Bernie is X, Y,and Z!

For the love of god do not bother with these people...they already support Trump which says EVERYTHING you need to know about them.

They have zero substance, are not interested in real world logic or ANY logic for that matter.

But I’m GLAD that they’re nervous!

And trust me, they ARE...and for good reason, Bernie is a REAL populist unlike their FAKE piece of shit serial criminal cult-leader.

Nevada is 5 days away! Let’s go 3 for 3!

Go Bernie Go!


Does Bernie knows you like 10 year old anime girls sexually? Would he be proud? Trump probably would be. You should vote for Trump.
俺の好きな番号は二六七八二九だ。

めぐみんを求めるのは犯罪なのだ?
 
Feb 13, 8:30 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3115
@traed Well that's just confusing and not helping others understand the difference. This is why I said as a socialist, he argues for capitalistic ideas.
Also didnt know those terms were real. That's why I dont follow them cause as you said, no one may fit perfectly in a category. Guess I will look them up, seems interesting to see the supposed division.

@Boxxo it is true what you say. Somehow the other capitalist countries can maneuver in ways to support themselves. Healthcare for instance is tied to economics in the simple way most trauma felt by the economy is when the workforce drops out because of illness. Can't have a dynamic economy if the workforce falls out cause of lack of care or high cost of it.

@shirakawa_megumi I haven't seen him do such a thing (link?), but also that's not the same as communism, cause the process (who owns the business) is different. Even Communist argue against socialism, as the two don't mutually agree on how to create change.
 
Feb 13, 8:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 337
@Silverstorm

He talks all the time, that he wants billionaires money. His side kick, AOC who manipulates him want to take control of all companies, she wants to seize the means of production from Bezos and give it to workers.

Please tell me what do you call, when owners are hanged and their companies are given to workers...?
俺の好きな番号は二六七八二九だ。

めぐみんを求めるのは犯罪なのだ?
 
Feb 13, 9:50 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 173
^ You're tripping pretty hard my guy.

Imagine thinking that Bernie promised no borders and free healthcare to all illegals.


:(
 
Feb 13, 10:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 337
Daycrawler007 said:
^ You're tripping pretty hard my guy.

Imagine thinking that Bernie promised no borders and free healthcare to all illegals.


You all lie, lie, lie.

First seconds. All want to give free healthcare to illegals.

俺の好きな番号は二六七八二九だ。

めぐみんを求めるのは犯罪なのだ?
 
Feb 13, 3:15 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 173
--ALEX-- said:
LMAO at Trump fans trying their HARDEST to pretend Bernie is X, Y,and Z!

For the love of god do not bother with these people...they already support Trump which says EVERYTHING you need to know about them.

They have zero substance, are not interested in real world logic or ANY logic for that matter.

But I’m GLAD that they’re nervous!

And trust me, they ARE...and for good reason, Bernie is a REAL populist unlike their FAKE piece of shit serial criminal cult-leader.

Nevada is 5 days away! Let’s go 3 for 3!

Go Bernie Go!


Thanks Alex for speaking the truth. GO BERN GO.


:(
 
Feb 13, 3:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1268
Bernie Sanders getting nominated is every Republican's dream scenario as it is basically guarantees Trump wins the election. Whilst the vast majority of Americans are completely uninformed when it comes to basic Economics and Civics; they're still far from being so fucking dumb that they'd actually fall for for any Bernie's bullshit. Now that shit takes a SPECIAL kind of stupidity and childishness (not to mention delusion) to actually fall for. That shit takes a really special kind of stupid (or at least delusion) to actually fall for. Most Americans are old enough to have seen the horrors of Communist Socialism (Bernie tries to pretend he's for Scandinavian Liberalism but clearly that's not what we truly wants) and know that to vote for someone in favor of it would be pure insanity. Bernie would turn away most Americans and only the radicals in non-swing states would be showing up for him in droves. He'd lose for sure.

What'll be ironic if Bernie wins the nomination is that the next three highest candidates Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar could have EASILY destroyed Trump in a general election. And the later two I think most Republicans actually wouldn't even bee too upset about being president (like if the media were to tone down all their propaganda bullshit for just a second, I think under either of those later two we could actually see the country to start to heal and unify again after the 12 years of divisive bullshit under Trump and Obama). However as long as all three of them are in the race they'll continue to split the vote and Bernie will walk away with the victory (which is the exact same fucking situation that lead to Trump unfortunately getting the nomination in 2016). So sadly it looks like Trump will be president in 2020 (still better than Bernie at least), hopefully he at least replaces Mike Pence with Nikki Haley then at least there's be a chance we get her as president if something happens to Trump.
 
Feb 13, 3:49 PM

Online
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3373
shirakawa_megumi said:
GamerDLM said:

You changed your claim. You said not being white resulted in various bonuses and then proceeded to link a case in which a non-white group (asians) were allegedly being discriminated against via college quotas. So you moved the goal post to include white and asians and then added nothing to show how other non-white groups were getting "bonuses".


If white and asians are discriminated against, then rest "wins", it's that obvious? And yes, in this particular example both white and asian people are discriminated against.


Except you didn't show a case where whites were being discriminated against, you showed a case where asians were being discriminated against. Now you're conflating the two groups for no reason.
 
Feb 13, 3:55 PM
She Hug

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5759
I'm gonna err on the side of caution and say that we're still goign to have Trump for another four years.
 
Feb 13, 3:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 38

This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing.
 
Feb 13, 4:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4725
Boxxo said:

This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing.


When will people understand that what is likely the majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to turn into some cucked, economically weak EU country or the like where the Leviathan cares more about some catastrophic climate change boogeyman than the struggling working class. I highly doubt that Bernie would be just another demsoc in any other country too. Bernie wants to keep military budget at around the same levels, for example. He wants to implement wealth tax, which, as far as I know, has been tried and deemed a failure in pretty much all those other "democratic socialist countries"

You are the only one who is delusional if you think Bernie has a better shot than one of the centrists at beating Trump. Trump is the favorite against any Dem imo, but Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell at winning a general election. Bernie fanatics spend too much time in their internet echo chambers to understand the American electorate.

If you are against the terms "basic economics" then I don't know what to tell you. Bernie IS economically illiterate. I compel you to find anything in an economic textbook that supports Bernienomics. I compel you to find a single Nobel laureate that would support Bernienomics. Gunnar Myrdal is probably the closest thing among Nobel laureates to a democratic socialism supporter, and even HIS ideas aren't compatible with Bernie's fantasies. Hell, read the works of Marx and Lenin themselves. See how Lenin says that the purpose of socialism is communism, and see how Marx says communism requires a kind of ascended population of "Communist individuals"....aka a fantasy
 
Feb 13, 4:53 PM
ʙᴀss² ꜰɪᴇɴᴅ

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 23
Hold up right there, mister. This fella is certified top quality tree fertilizer. Old comrade Sanders doesn't quite measure up to that level.

Daycrawler007 said:
Thanks Alex for speaking the truth. GO BERN GO.
Aw schucks, he got you all hooked on them beans now. *pfft*
 
Feb 13, 6:08 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 38
RandomChampion said:

When will people understand that what is likely the majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to turn into some cucked, economically weak EU country

The only thing America has over EU countries higher GDP, but that is a joke measurement. EU countries overall have better living standards and are not the corporate hellscape America is. There are barely any homeless people, everyone has healthcare, not everyone is drastically in debt like in America, free college, abundant public transport, infrastructure that is not falling apart, etc.
climate change boogeyman

climate change is a big problem. I can disregard your whole post and laugh at you with regards to this statement because of its sheer amount of brainlessness
the struggling working class

Bernie is the working class candidate. Everyone else is an establishment puppet.
I highly doubt that Bernie would be just another demsoc in any other country too.

Nope he is pretty much a standard demsoc. Though I guess most burgers are too ideologically bind to see that having their oligarchs' ideology drilled into their heads. Anything that is centrist is seen as far left over there lol.
Bernie wants to keep military budget

I recall him wanting to cut it, do you have a source?
He wants to implement wealth tax, which

And that's a good thing
You are the only one who is delusional if you think Bernie has a better shot than one of the centrists at beating Trump.

Well if anyone has a shot it is basically Bernie. Run on a centrist and you will get the same result as 2016. The only person capable of getting a high voter turnout is Bernie. If he gets the nomination more centrists would turn to him.
If you are against the terms "basic economics" then I don't know what to tell you.

There is no such thing as basic economics. Everything is much more complex than the pseuds who spout this bullshit phrase can comprehend. Most of the shit in economics is unfalsifiable. I find it incredibly hilarious when econfags pretend they are a part of STEM. The only thing economics is capable of is propping up the current system. It is entirely limited in its scope. Mainstream economics has no empirical basis or track record of macro predictive success.
I compel you to find a single Nobel laureate

Nobel in econ is a joke prize. It doesn't matter. Most of the winners have been rats that propped up the status quo. Economics is about propping up the status quo economic system providing an intellectual veneer to the prevailing hegemony.
Modified by Boxxo, Feb 13, 6:44 PM
 
Feb 13, 6:47 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2848
Boxxo said:

This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing.

Basically.
Bernie is the best chance against trump.

Also, it is sad to see the extent Americans have been conditioned to enable such a blatently corrupt state that has committed so many heinous acts, and has destroyed the lives of so many around the world, in order to defend bad economic theory due to red scare nonsense over any left wing economics(unless it's military Keynesian or corporate welfare), and a candidate who actually has an interest to combat such corruption, and is able to energize the amount of people needed for it.

I can see you


 
Feb 13, 8:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4725
Boxxo said:
The only thing America has over EU countries higher GDP, but that is a joke measurement. EU countries overall have better living standards and are not the corporate hellscape America is. There are barely any homeless people, everyone has healthcare, not everyone is drastically in debt like in America, free college, abundant public transport, infrastructure that is not falling apart, etc.


Talk about clueless LOL.

EU countries do NOT overall have a higher standard of living than the U.S. That is a myth propogated by delusional leftists.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/2019-human-development-index-ranking

Here the U.S. is ranked 15. Only 6 EU countries are ranked ahead of the U.S. And only one of those countries has a population greater than that of Florida. 10 of the countries on that list have a population less than that of NYC. All the countries ahead of the U.S., including Germany, have a fraction of the population of the U.S.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

According to the OECD Better Life Index only 4 EU countries rank higher than the top 10 ranking U.S.

What both of these rankings also don't take into account is the fact that the EU standard of living is rapidly declining in relation to that of the U.S. A bloated welfare state can only last so long until it collapses.

The U.S. has lower homeless rates than a ton of the EU countries, including the vaunted Germany and Nordic countries

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2019/05/CASEY_Louise_Paper.pdf

Everyone in the U.S. receives healthcare too. We just don't have a standard universal healthcare.

Debt is used differently in the U.S. than it is in other countries. In the U.S. you can file for bankruptcy and still live a great life, for example.

Tell me more about how Europeans get to use public transportation and rent. That just goes to show how poor people in Europe are compared to the U.S. where personal motor vehicle and the dream of owning property is more in reach.

America ranks highly in infrastructure as well.

Just face it. You don't know what you're talking about lol. Have you even been to the U.S. before?


Boxxo said:
climate change is a big problem. I can disregard your whole post and laugh at you with regards to this statement because of its sheer amount of brainlessness


The climate change models championed by children who skip school like Greta are based on the Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics equations. These equations are so poorly understood that they are among the handful of famous Millennium Prize equations – anyone who can solve an equation gets a million dollar prize. I'll give you a hint – nobody won the prize yet.

The fact of the matter is that there is no concrete scientific evidence suggesting that if governments don't take control of an insane amount of already limited resources, the earth will face global catastrophe in the near future/our lifetimes.

But of course, you're exposing yourself as a brainwashed sheep who is just parrotting what the leftist machine spouts. Talk about uneducated lol.

Boxxo said:
Bernie is the working class candidate. Everyone else is an establishment puppet.


Bernie correctly identifies that he working class is getting squeezed, but offers nothing that will help them.

A 0% Federal Funds Rate will fuck over the working class. Hell I can see him making interests rates negative since that's what all of the euro countries are going towards now, and we all know how much he worships them.

Raising taxes on the working class does not help them.

Ballooning the federal deficit to insane levels does not help the working class.

A stupid wealth tax that penalizes saving does not help the working class (hint: saving and investing is the key to upward class movment)

A green new deal that will cost DOUBLE the U.S. defense budget per year and make energy more expensive is not going to help the working class.

A bloated military, which Bernie says he wants to keep; as well as the U.S. keeping the role of world police, which bernie supports, are both bad for working class.

Boxxo said:
Nope he is pretty much a standard demsoc. Though I guess most burgers are too ideologically bind to see that having their oligarchs' ideology drilled into their heads. Anything that is centrist is seen as far left over there lol.


I have no interest in discussing the similarities and differences between other democratic socialists. All that matters is that Bernie doesn't really know what he's talking about.

The only way to take down oligarchs is to vote for right wing libertarians.

Boxxo said:
Well if anyone has a shot it is basically Bernie. Run on a centrist and you will get the same result as 2016. The only person capable of getting a high voter turnout is Bernie. If he gets the nomination more centrists would turn to him.


Again, the only people who believe this are non-Americans and the Bernie fanatics in the U.S. I don't know where the myth that Bernie has widespread support comes from. Why do people think that Bernie can fuel high voter turnout for dems? Bernie got slaughtered by HILLARY in the 2016 democratic primary. What makes you think that most Americans subscribe to Bernie's policies? If Bernie gets stomped by Hillary, what do you think is going to happen in a general election where conservatives, libertarians, centrists and independents get to vote?


Boxxo said:
There is no such thing as basic economics. Everything is much more complex than the pseuds who spout this bullshit phrase can comprehend. Most of the shit in economics is unfalsifiable. I find it incredibly hilarious when econfags pretend they are a part of STEM. The only thing economics is capable of is propping up the current system. It is entirely limited in its scope. Mainstream economics has no empirical basis or track record of macro predictive success.


I agree 100% that all the mainstream economics nowadays who try to mimic physicists with their models, formulas and publications are clueless. They think economies can be solved by math equations which is bullshit.

That does not mean that “basic economics” does not exist. Economics IS a vast, well described subject of academic scrutiny. There ARE basics – most of them are just ignored. For example, Keynesians ignore Say's Law of Markets because only by ignoring the law can they pretend to be scientists and use their poor models and bullshit equations.

The Austrian School of Economics, for example, is based on praxeology and does not pretend they are STEM.

Boxxo said:
Nobel in econ is a joke prize. It doesn't matter. Most of the winners have been rats that propped up the status quo. Economics is about propping up the status quo economic system providing an intellectual veneer to the prevailing hegemony.


I wouldn't go so far to call it a joke prize. The fact of the matter is, however, that all of those economists know more about economies than Bernie does, and all of them disagree with his rhetoric. I even cited Marx and Lenin for you. If you know anything about their works and their ideas, you know that what Bernie is proposing doesn't make sense economically.
 
Feb 14, 6:07 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1268
Boxxo said:

This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing.


Oh look a butthurt Bernie bro who refuses to accept reality lol

MasterGlyth said:

Basically.
Bernie is the best chance against trump.

Also, it is sad to see the extent Americans have been conditioned to enable such a blatently corrupt state that has committed so many heinous acts, and has destroyed the lives of so many around the world, in order to defend bad economic theory due to red scare nonsense over any left wing economics(unless it's military Keynesian or corporate welfare), and a candidate who actually has an interest to combat such corruption, and is able to energize the amount of people needed for it.


America's blatantly corrupt state is precisely WHY you'd have to be a fucking moron to vote for Bernie. Our government has done nothing this century other than fuck up everything it's tried to accomplish and make peoples' lives worse. Yet even knowing all that, you want people to vote for the guy who's going to give the government MORE power (fucking QUINTUPLING it)? What the hell are you smoking LOL? Also LMAO at "bad economic theory" when the VAST majority of economists disagree with you on that and I trust them a lot more than I do you. It's a shame our politicians refuse to listen to them, instead instating policies that fuck over country because they care more about winning idiots' votes and winning lobbyists' money more than they actually care about doing what's best for the country.

Btw Bernie Sanders is the very DEFINITION of American political corruption. He's hasn't held a real, steady job, a single day of his life. He spent his entire life mooching off the government, off hard working taxpayers, until FINALLY in his FIFTIES when he conned his way into becoming a mayor by running a campaign full of false promises (finally receiving his first ever steady job at the ripe old age of 53 if you can even call being a politician a real job despite the fact they provide nothing of value to society). Talk about a fucking loser, who in the hell would ever want their kids to grow up to be like him? And even to this day he has STILL provided NOTHING of value to society yet has somehow become a MILLIONAIRE off the back of our government and its people. What a joke; and people are actually dumb enough to fall for his bullshit LOL. But hey at least he hasn't taken any corporate bribes, oh wait, he has. But hey at least unlike most politicians it's not his primary source? Oh, he just fills the gap by taking bribes from the corrupt ass unions instead? Oh guess his shtick is bullshit. But I guess that was pretty obvious considering he dodges any question about how he actually plans on implementing his policies. Bernie is NOT honest, he's just consistent about his nutjob views, policies whose implementation he refuses to tell the truth about to his constituents. It's truly amazing people really are that dumb that they'd fall for his crap, oh well.
Modified by Kyotosomo, Feb 14, 6:12 PM
 
Feb 14, 7:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2848
Kyotosomo said:
long useless rant
A good amount of corruption would be solved by removing the financial intensive to be corrupt.
Yes, bernie is so very corrupt, and the real problem in politics, guy who suggests voting for bloomberg and deep state pete.
Great priorities you have.

I can see you


 
Yesterday, 7:59 AM
Forum Moderator
Nameless Dreamer

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 922
Thread Cleaned

Trolling will not be tolerated. Please do not bait or otherwise troll users based on their political alignment, further instances of this will result in the thread being locked.

Site & Forum Guidelines I.3.: Trolling, abuse and/or harassment of any community member (user or moderator) will not be tolerated.
A shooting star, 'cross the sky
Naught but a flash, 'fore it's gone;
Its twinkling causes an inkling
That what was once forgotten
Shall soon be remembered.
 
Yesterday, 8:56 AM
ʙᴀss² ꜰɪᴇɴᴅ

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 23
^ Copy, Foxtrot Delta. No freedom of speech authorized, loud and fucking clear.
 
Yesterday, 11:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
Bayek said:
Ahhh, mmmm, nope. I'm going to have to say Michael Bloomberg is the best choice at this point. He is the most qualified person to ever run for office and he's a truly upstanding man of the people. I can't point to any specifics, but I was paid enough to advertise for him so...
I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Today, 12:04 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
shirakawa_megumi said:
First seconds. All want to give free healthcare to illegals.
And thank God. When people show up at the hospital, we don't check their ID and their wallets and turn them away. We treat them. Emergency care is expensive. The citizens fork the bill. Health insurance to illegals give illegals the chance to pay for their own healthcare. And even if the government subsidizes the insurance and care, preventative is dozens of times cheaper than emergency care. On the other hand, picture a world where people don't go to hospitals when they're sick, and they have their own separate back alley way economy like Brazilian shantytowns.

I'm not baiting or otherwise trolling or harassing you based on your political alignment, but I don't know why conservatives (besides you) insist on emptying their wallets to pay for illegal immigrants, but I know I sure don't.

This is the same problem as capital punishment. Years and years of studies have proven that capital punishment is much more expensive than feeding felons for dozens of years, and yet people still insist on emptying their wallets on this misguided emotively guided reasoning than they refuse to pay less money to feed felons. Or, you know, just disregard due process. Fuck the Constitution.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Today, 12:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
Kyotosomo said:
America's blatantly corrupt state is precisely WHY you'd have to be a fucking moron to vote for Bernie.
Trump just drastically increased deficit and this is the argument you want to make?
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Today, 12:27 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
RandomChampion said:
If you are against the terms "basic economics" then I don't know what to tell you. Bernie IS economically illiterate. I compel you to find anything in an economic textbook that supports Bernienomics. I compel you to find a single Nobel laureate that would support Bernienomics. Gunnar Myrdal is probably the closest thing among Nobel laureates to a democratic socialism supporter, and even HIS ideas aren't compatible with Bernie's fantasies. Hell, read the works of Marx and Lenin themselves. See how Lenin says that the purpose of socialism is communism, and see how Marx says communism requires a kind of ascended population of "Communist individuals"....aka a fantasy
I don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro. Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries.

Setting that aside, while I agree with Boxxo that economics doesn't have the same rigor as hard sciences (hell, empirical economics is a recent invention), I would also argue that Republicans don't understand economics. Specifically, they don't understand the effect of externalities. They (and many leftists) don't understand the tragedy of the commons. They don't understand that we function in a spaceship economy, not a cowboy economy. Global resources are limited, and we possess the technology where one private interest can negatively affect the productivity of numerous other parties in a way that takes technical competency, beyond that of an average citizen, to prove. One example of this is global warming: the costs to economy are projected to be in the trillions, and the lack of prevention and regulation is the most expensive mistake one could make. That's like arguing people shouldn't maintain their cars because it's too expensive!

Government agencies need to measure pollution outputs and implement carbon taxes so that the hidden costs passed from one private party could be recovered by the public. When people ignore these negative externalities, they are effectively giving handouts to polluters and creating black markets of capital inefficiency.

So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics.

I'm a Yang guy, so you have a point there with the wealth tax, but for everything Bernie doesn't understand about economics, there's at least 3 things Trump doesn't understand about economics. And morality.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Today, 4:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32681
katsucats said:
Bayek said:
Ahhh, mmmm, nope. I'm going to have to say Michael Bloomberg is the best choice at this point. He is the most qualified person to ever run for office and he's a truly upstanding man of the people. I can't point to any specifics, but I was paid enough to advertise for him so...
I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me.

Shouldn't he already be dead to you for his not so long ago past implementive support of stop and frisk and racial profiling? Even if he really were against it now, it shows he can make rash poorly informed decisions about big topics that are well known.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/leaked-audio-bloomberg-aspen-institute-racial-profiling-stop-and-frisk-policing.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/13/bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-remarks-campaign-trail/4748417002/


What do you think about the half baked idea I've been throwing around that Bernie making Yang a running mate would be a good match? I think the two could have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. I didn't give deep analysis this is more intuitive of an observation.
 
10 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
traed said:
katsucats said:
I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me.

Shouldn't he already be dead to you for his not so long ago past implementive support of stop and frisk and racial profiling? Even if he really were against it now, it shows he can make rash poorly informed decisions about big topics that are well known.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/leaked-audio-bloomberg-aspen-institute-racial-profiling-stop-and-frisk-policing.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/13/bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-remarks-campaign-trail/4748417002/
I don't pick candidates on one issue. It's about the whole package and how they're going to contribute to the political landscape. I'm never going to agree with everyone on everything. Let's talk about the wealth tax that I'm against. Let's talk about single-payer healthcare, which I'm for, but I have little confidence that the bureaucracy as it is now could pull it off without a hitch. That was my main argument for a public option to slowly out-compete and phase out private health insurance. No company gets it right the first time. Go look at early versions of eBay, Google, Reddit, etc. Go read about how many trials every successful company had to go through to get to where they are. Then consider why people think either the government is too corrupt to do anything at all, or why people think the government is like superman and can do everything at the flip of a switch. It doesn't work like that.

By those disagreements, I'm very much not a Bernie Bro. And so he should be dead to me... except not. I look at the whole field, where he fits in against the other candidates, where he fits in in general, and whether he could provide net positive influence to the country.

traed said:
What do you think about the half baked idea I've been throwing around that Bernie making Yang a running mate would be a good match? I think the two could have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. I didn't give deep analysis this is more intuitive of an observation.
I don't think Bernie would ever choose Yang as a running mate. It's too much of a risk to his campaign. He's a frontrunner, and he doesn't need to make these kind of moves. Polls show any Democratic candidate can beat Trump. I don't necessarily believe this but Bernie and his fans sure do.

But would they be a good match? I think they stand in a similar place in the ideological spectrum, but they have vastly different approaches to the same problems. That's either a good match or a disaster.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
5 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32681
katsucats said:

I don't pick candidates on one issue. It's about the whole package and how they're going to contribute to the political landscape. I'm never going to agree with everyone on everything. Let's talk about the wealth tax that I'm against. Let's talk about single-payer healthcare, which I'm for, but I have little confidence that the bureaucracy as it is now could pull it off without a hitch. That was my main argument for a public option to slowly out-compete and phase out private health insurance. No company gets it right the first time. Go look at early versions of eBay, Google, Reddit, etc. Go read about how many trials every successful company had to go through to get to where they are. Then consider why people think either the government is too corrupt to do anything at all, or why people think the government is like superman and can do everything at the flip of a switch. It doesn't work like that.

By those disagreements, I'm very much not a Bernie Bro. And so he should be dead to me... except not. I look at the whole field, where he fits in against the other candidates, where he fits in in general, and whether he could provide net positive influence to the country.

As I implied it's not an issue in itself it's the preview of how they may make decisions which gives a very vague outline of policy on non platformed issues in this case of Bloomberg. Though there is a lot of speculation here which is why looking at a persons character also is needed which is further speculative but more accurate than looking only at a candidates platform advertised.

There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right.


I don't think Bernie would ever choose Yang as a running mate. It's too much of a risk to his campaign. He's a frontrunner, and he doesn't need to make these kind of moves. Polls show any Democratic candidate can beat Trump. I don't necessarily believe this but Bernie and his fans sure do.

But would they be a good match? I think they stand in a similar place in the ideological spectrum, but they have vastly different approaches to the same problems. That's either a good match or a disaster.


Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible.
Modified by traed, 5 hours ago
 
4 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 222
traed said:
Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible.


Y'know, there are more positions than VP to consider if we're gonna speculate on who would make Bernie a stronger ticket. Yang would likely be at home in the commerce or treasury departments, and could show his strengths there. As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together.

That being said it's something of a risk when he is performing well so far, and is likely going to beat Buttigieg for the ticket on his own merits as it looks so far.
Nico nico ni~eed a siggy like the all the cool kids
Really wish we had a rep system so I could farm it and spam rep+
 
3 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
traed said:
There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right.
Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional.

traed said:
Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say.
Bernie would have the final say because he would be the president (like you said, order of command), but depending on the issue, his experience is likely irrelevant. I'm not sure what Yang contributes to this ticket then. It would be like Trump making Mike Pence his bitch.

traed said:
I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible.
Yeah, sure, Yang could probably contribute to the administration in some capacity, but not in one such where Bernie gets the final say.

ItsaNico said:
As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together.
I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
3 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1268
MasterGlyth said:
Kyotosomo said:
Post that MasterGlyth was too dumb to comprehend and too obsessed with his own opinions to consider listening to
A good amount of corruption would be solved by removing the financial intensive to be corrupt.
Yes, bernie is so very corrupt, and the real problem in politics, guy who suggests voting for bloomberg and deep state pete.
Great priorities you have.


At no point did I say anybody should vote for Bloomberg or Buttigieg haha, I love how you literally have to make shit up in your head to cope with other people disagreeing with you lol. As far as I'm concerned the only sane and reasonable person has already dropped out of the race (and I live in California anyway so my vote doesn't matter, I have the luxury of being able to throw it away on third party candidates). Also it's pretty hilarious you think that the politicians are ever going to vote to remove their own power to make gobs of money; you're clearly living in a dream world. Only thing we can do is slowly cut down how much power they have so that they have less to abuse, and cut down the size of government so that it's easier to spot when they're perpetrate said abuses (plus less people to do the actual abuse).

katsucats said:
Kyotosomo said:
America's blatantly corrupt state is precisely WHY you'd have to be a fucking moron to vote for Bernie.
Trump just drastically increased deficit and this is the argument you want to make?


That's a complete non-issue as no matter who becomes president they aren't doing jack shit about the deficit, we are absolutely fucked either way in that regard. Both parties refuse to address it and no candidate/president will ever champion it because to do so would GUARANTEE a loss in the election and that their entire party immediately gets ousted out of office (while the other party undoes whatever was done; in order to win the voters' love) because the American population is too fucking ignorant to realize how big of an issue our spending problem is; all they care about is how dare you touch what they were (wrongfully) promised.

In a few decades the world economy is going to see the most devastating crash in history, hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people; will die as a result of a broken global economy leaving many of the countries that depend on other countries unable to properly function. And the blame will be not just on the spineless American politicians who refused to take the bullet for the good of the country (and world), but our fucking infuriatingly ignorant population that threatened to fire the bullet at them in the first place.

The only candidate for whom the deficit issue is a factor is MAYBE Bernie Sanders because whereas everybody else would just hold us steady on the path to ruin, he would actually quadruple the speed at which we get there (although I doubt he'd actually be able to push most of what he wants through congress, but who knows considering how fucking insane the Democratic party has become not to mention most people REALLY hate Trump so we could see a sweeping victory for the Democrats). Although honestly that would maybe actually be a GOOD thing, which is why I actually would consider voting for him. We're heading over the cliff either way so having Bernie be the one to do it blowing out all the spending immediately (as opposed to making us wait a couple more decades) at least in that case as ignorant as our population is even they would so clearly see that spending was what destroyed our economy (no matter how much the media were to lie and spread their propaganda there'd be no way of twisting it into being anybody elses fault) so at least in the case we could hammer it into these idiots' heads that way we could avoid repeating the mistake for a century or two (assuming the planet can still sustain 10 - 15 billion people at that point which I have doubts of). Plus life would be awesome the next five or six years until the crash on account of all the free shit we'd be getting (even knowing we couldn't afford it).

I run up over $40,000 of medical expenses a year so clearly it's in my best interest to vote for someone promising "free" healthcare, but I also have a functioning brain and sense morality so I understand that it's not in the best interest of the country and that it would be immoral of me to vote that direction out of my own selfish needs. I can manage on my own, what matters is long term solutions; not short term fantasies.
Modified by Kyotosomo, 3 hours ago
 
3 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4725
katsucats said:
I don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro


Tell me where I said I don't believe in global warming. All I said was that the science doesn't support what the climate fear mongers like Bernie suggest we do. Double digit trillions over the course of next 10 years? Fukin lol

katsucats said:
Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries.



We both know that the semantics of the term can be discussed ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is that Bernienomics embraces an economic system that involves taking large portions of whatever is produced by private enterprise, and redistributing it. So while it is not the classical socialism, it's socializing a huge portion of the fruits of private enterprise. This might sound familiar to you. I'll give you a hint – it starts with an “f” and ends with an “-ist” but I don't care to argue about that. It's the sibling of socialism anyway. The bottom line is that Bernie is economically illiterate.

katsucats said:

Setting that aside, while I agree with Boxxo that economics doesn't have the same rigor as hard sciences (hell, empirical economics is a recent invention), I would also argue that Republicans don't understand economics. Specifically, they don't understand the effect of externalities. They (and many leftists) don't understand the tragedy of the commons. They don't understand that we function in a spaceship economy, not a cowboy economy. Global resources are limited, and we possess the technology where one private interest can negatively affect the productivity of numerous other parties in a way that takes technical competency, beyond that of an average citizen, to prove. One example of this is global warming: the costs to economy are projected to be in the trillions, and the lack of prevention and regulation is the most expensive mistake one could make. That's like arguing people shouldn't maintain their cars because it's too expensive!

Government agencies need to measure pollution outputs and implement carbon taxes so that the hidden costs passed from one private party could be recovered by the public. When people ignore these negative externalities, they are effectively giving handouts to polluters and creating black markets of capital inefficiency.

So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics.


I agree that pretty much every Republican (at least the ones I've obvserved) save Rand Paul doesn't understand economics...or just promotes policies that line the pockets of special interests.

If you are skeptical of empirical economics, then why do think the solution to the tragedy of the commons is in the form of top-down regulation, of which a well known flaw is knowledge problems?

Mises, an Austrian economist, described the tragedy of commons decades before the guy who wrote the essay “Tragedy of the Commons”. The hallmarks of Austrian economics are praxeology and deductive reasoning, which allows it to avoid all the shortcomings empirical economics brings with it.

In any case, the solution to the tragedy of the commons is not government regulation.

https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-economics

Here is the Austrian argument if youre interested

katsucats said:
So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics


Liberals do not understand economics. The corporatists who want to redistribute wealth to the wealthy either don't understand economics or understand what they are doing and simply want to line the wealthy's pockets.

katsucats said:
I'm a Yang guy, so you have a point there with the wealth tax, but for everything Bernie doesn't understand about economics, there's at least 3 things Trump doesn't understand about economics. And morality.


This conversation isn't about Trump. Trump is a protectionist, monetary expansionist, hardcore Keynesian – all things I think are bullshit economics. His economic policies are terrible imo. I do think they are better than what Bernie proposes, though. Bernie will run a similar racket as Trump, and then some. Bernie's Green New Deal or whatever he calls it is an economic disaster, and Bernie just wants to raise taxes pretty much across the board.
 
3 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2848
Kyotosomo said:
MasterGlyth said:
A good amount of corruption would be solved by removing the financial intensive to be corrupt.
Yes, bernie is so very corrupt, and the real problem in politics, guy who suggests voting for bloomberg and deep state pete.
Great priorities you have.


At no point did I say anybody should vote for Bloomberg or Buttigieg haha, I love how you literally have to make shit up in your head to cope with other people disagreeing with you lol.
Kyotosomo said:
Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar could have EASILY destroyed Trump in a general election. And the later two I think most Republicans actually wouldn't even bee too upset about being president...I think under either of those later two we could actually see the country to start to heal and unify again after the 12 years of divisive bullshit under Trump and Obama. However as long as all three of them are in the race they'll continue to split the vote and Bernie will walk away with the victory ...So sadly it looks like Trump will be president in 2020

These candidates could beat trump, you don't want trump, corrupt jerk offs are the better alternative, its's sad the vote is split, the country could "heal and unify" under bloomberg, ok then.
Poor attempt at backtracking here.

I can see you


 
3 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
Kyotosomo said:
The only candidate for whom the deficit issue is a factor is MAYBE Bernie Sanders because whereas everybody else would just hold us steady on the path to ruin, he would actually quadruple the speed at which we get there (although I doubt he'd actually be able to push most of what he wants through congress, but who knows considering how fucking insane the Democratic party has become not to mention most people REALLY hate Trump so we could see a sweeping victory for the Democrats). Although honestly that would maybe actually be a GOOD thing, which is why I actually would consider voting for him. We're heading over the cliff either way so having Bernie be the one to do it blowing out all the spending immediately (as opposed to making us wait a couple more decades) at least in that case as ignorant as our population is even they would so clearly see that spending was what destroyed our economy (no matter how much the media were to lie and spread their propaganda there'd be no way of twisting it into being anybody else fault) so at least in the case we could hammer it into these idiots' heads that way we could avoid repeating the mistake for a century or two (assuming the planet can still sustain 10 - 15 billion people at that point which I have doubts of). Plus life would be awesome the next five or six years until the crash on account of all the free shit we'd be getting (even knowing we couldn't afford it).
I don't know why you're so much against Bernie Sanders, since you didn't say anything specific about any of his policies, and considering that half of the Democratic candidates are for:
  • Single-payer healthcare
  • Education subsidies
  • Expansion of Medicare
  • Job retraining programs
  • Etc.

I see nothing about Bernie's policies that are unique to just him. But let's break this down for a second.

  1. Americans are paying TWICE as much as any other country in the world on health care to worse results. The money goes straight into the insurance industry. So scaling that back and letting the government subsidize and pool negotiation leverage (i.e. economy of scale) costs less, not more. The money raised in taxes would drastically undercut the money we already spend.
  2. Free college education costs an estimated 70-90 billion annually to fund ALL undergraduates, which isn't even a drop in our 4 trillion bucket. The expanse of education will spur job growth and the economy and raise more money than the 55 billion we spent on military aircrafts in 2019.
  3. Global warming is flooding our cities and states, causing crop failures, damaging our fishing industries, causing insects that normally don't show up to completely destroy our farming industries due to warmer weather. A small rise in global temperatures COSTS use billions to trillions of dollars.

Investment is CHEAP, not EXPENSIVE. Not investing when you should is EXPENSIVE. Cutting the FDA programs that regulate our air and water quality is expensive. A 1% uptick in cancer costs hundreds of billions down the road.

And I think, in my opinion, that's the problem with this kind of assessment. Too many people focus on current costs as opposed to future costs. Any Poker player will tell you what matters is not whether you win or lose a particular hand, but the expected value of the hands you play. Any businessman will tell you if don't put money down to secure a new machine, or system network, you might lose tons of money from increased operating costs. Any programmer will tell you if you don't spend time and money testing your system, you accrue technical debt. They all understand one thing: Not spending money is expensive.

And putting all this aside, studies have shown that if Bush Jr. never implemented his tax cuts to the wealthy, national debt would have never ballooned in the first place. Trump just cut corporate rates from 35% to 21%. The 35% was a temporary discount from like 40%. Trump made the discount into a permanent 21%. That's the true cause of our debt, not even the 700 billion per year that we waste on our military, once again TWICE (actually more like 4 times) as expensive as other countries like China, for a questionable benefit, due to military contracts. The top tax bracket of what many remember as the "Golden Age", the 1950s, was 70%.

So yeah, where was I again? Oh yeah. No.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
2 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32681
katsucats said:
traed said:
There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right.
Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional.

There are completly legal fairly realistic ways to do it but I haven't hashed out every step on how. For example shorten patent life then make use of the patented systems big corporations created. Another way is buying a major company.

katsucats said:
traed said:
Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say.
Bernie would have the final say because he would be the president (like you said, order of command), but depending on the issue, his experience is likely irrelevant. I'm not sure what Yang contributes to this ticket then. It would be like Trump making Mike Pence his bitch.

katsucats said:
Yeah, sure, Yang could probably contribute to the administration in some capacity, but not in one such where Bernie gets the final say.

Eh well i was being a bit too imprecise. While I did imply VP I didn't necessarily mean being VP inherently. I didn't quite get a feeling of Yang as a president since he doesn't have political experience but I think he should be somewhere in the government


katsucats said:
ItsaNico said:
As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together.
I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates.

That's not worst ive seen people call Butigege ive seen him called Buttplug

I've explained this elsewhere in the thread to someone else. That is not a proper protest vote strategy because it reads as a signal "Dems should go further to the right. Conservatives only!". A protest vote is voting third party for someone with policies most closely matching what you want (try looking on Isidewith they list some of the third party candidates) because it signals what you want or an unapplicable write in which tells them who you want... not voting for someone with policies opposed to what you want which is just political masochism.
Modified by traed, 2 hours ago
 
2 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
RandomChampion said:
katsucats said:
I don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro
Tell me where I said I don't believe in global warming. All I said was that the science doesn't support what the climate fear mongers like Bernie suggest we do. Double digit trillions over the course of next 10 years? Fukin lol
The scientific projections express a fearful scenario, and to not hedge against that risk is playing the biggest lottery.

RandomChampion said:
katsucats said:
Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries.
We both know that the semantics of the term can be discussed ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is that Bernienomics embraces an economic system that involves taking large portions of whatever is produced by private enterprise, and redistributing it. So while it is not the classical socialism, it's socializing a huge portion of the fruits of private enterprise. This might sound familiar to you. I'll give you a hint – it starts with an “f” and ends with an “-ist” but I don't care to argue about that. It's the sibling of socialism anyway. The bottom line is that Bernie is economically illiterate.
Fascism isn't redistributing wealth that's been concentrated to the top back to the bottom. Wealth redistribution is inherent in every economic system, and in fact since income disparity is at all time highs due to 30 years of policy that distribute upward (i.e. trickle-down), it isn't at all inappropriate to redistribute it back down.

RandomChampion said:

If you are skeptical of empirical economics, then why do think the solution to the tragedy of the commons is in the form of top-down regulation, of which a well known flaw is knowledge problems?
I'm not skeptical of empirical economics. I noted that it's a relatively recent invention to demonstrate the point that economics is not as formally studied as hard sciences. Science is backed by observations, and has been since 1700s. Economics has not been backed by any observations until recently. That's why all the overly reductive equations of classical economics (e.g. E = C+I+G+NX) look like a joke. If anything, empirical economics is a step in the right direction.

If you re-read Garrett Hardin's article, he proposes that regulation is the only solution to the problem of the commons, and I think he makes a sound argument.

RandomChampion said:
Mises, an Austrian economist, described the tragedy of commons decades before the guy who wrote the essay “Tragedy of the Commons”. The hallmarks of Austrian economics are praxeology and deductive reasoning, which allows it to avoid all the shortcomings empirical economics brings with it.
You can't deductively reason away empirical system, and the idea that one could model a complex system involving a multitude of variables without a feedback loop onto reality is unscientific and disturbing. The primary assumption in both capitalism and socialism is that human beings are rational, and modern psychology and neuroscience have already soundly disproved that notion.

RandomChampion said:
In any case, the solution to the tragedy of the commons is not government regulation.

https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-economics

Here is the Austrian argument if youre interested
I scanned that and found it laughable. For it to reject Pareto optimality and regulation in favor of regulating property rights is like shifting goalposts and playing footsy. And of course, there's the same problems here as in alchemy and miasma theory -- both of which tried to "reason" their way into science with fascinating results.

RandomChampion said:
katsucats said:
So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics
Liberals do not understand economics. The corporatists who want to redistribute wealth to the wealthy either don't understand economics or understand what they are doing and simply want to line the wealthy's pockets.
I'm guessing you take after libertarian laissez-faire capitalism, which is, in my opinion, just as stupid as socialism. Imagine putting everything into a neat box and just pretending inefficiencies can never occur. For example, if industries are concentrated in a certain area so as to provide jobs, capital theorists must assume that people can just vote with their dollars and move out to rural areas, causing jobs to follow, that there can never be a real estate market breakdown because people are rational agents. Or that people can just "refuse" to put money in a bank or conduct business with any of a number of enterprises that are essential to their productivity.

To be honest, if you think classical capitalism is "understanding economics", whether Keynesian or Austrian, this is the end of our conversation. Nothing can be salvaged from such a grievant misunderstanding.

RandomChampion said:
This conversation isn't about Trump. Trump is a protectionist, monetary expansionist, hardcore Keynesian – all things I think are bullshit economics. His economic policies are terrible imo. I do think they are better than what Bernie proposes, though. Bernie will run a similar racket as Trump, and then some. Bernie's Green New Deal or whatever he calls it is an economic disaster, and Bernie just wants to raise taxes pretty much across the board.
I completely disagree. Raising taxes to fund social programs is a net positive unless you make more than $32 million.

Economics doesn't stand in a silo, isolated from any other component in life. Imagine a country without services -- without a military, without police, without public roads, without food regulations. Everything just depends on "property rights", and the miraculous thought that every citizen magically knows everything. Like if I sell you a poisonous pear that doesn't kill you today, but increases the chance your son will have birth defects. And you're a rational, knowledgeable agent. So you don't buy my pear. Or somehow you could exercise your tome of "property rights" and argue successfully in court that my pear caused you damage.

What kind of reality do you live in?

Of course government is necessary, and of course redistribution is necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand economics.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
2 hours ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
traed said:
katsucats said:
Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional.

There are completly legal fairly realistic ways to do it but I haven't hashed out every step on how. For example shorten patent life then make use of the patented systems big corporations created. Another way is buying a major company.
Which is still unrealistic, given the Senate and the Supreme Court.

traed said:
katsucats said:
I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates.

I've explained this elsewhere in the thread to someone else. That is not a proper protest vote strategy because it reads as a signal "Dems should go further to the right. Conservatives only!". A protest vote is voting third party for someone with policies most closely matching what you want (try looking on Isidewith they list some of the third party candidates) because it signals what you want or an unapplicable write in which tells them who you want... not voting for someone with policies opposed to what you want which is just political masochism.
A protest vote is hitting where it hurts. The whole lesser of two evils perspective is what's giving the parties such leeway to get away with their bullshit. The parties need to be made aware when people no longer puts up with it. We already lost 2016 due to the superdelegates fiasco, and now Hillary Clinton and the establishment are still pushing weight around Tulsi Gabbard for supporting Bernie, and the media leaving out Yang, and framing debates around certain narratives. Enough is enough.

For the record, I do not think Warren or Buttigieg could beat Trump. So if the establishment is just trying to vote in a "safe option", then fuck the party. Their grotesque mishandling of the Iowa caucus is practically a signal for Republicans to attack Bernie's single-payer plan, because if the government can't run an app that asks people 3 questions, how the fuck can they run a complete rehaul of one of the largest industries?

Once again, I am not against single-payer, but these incumbent assholes need to start playing ball. It's not any more political masochism as marching for a cause on a cold weekend is masochism.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
1 hour ago

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32681
@katsucats
The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results
 
1 hour ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
traed said:
@katsucats
The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results
It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself.

When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
54 minutes ago

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32681
katsucats said:
traed said:
@katsucats
The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results
It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself.

When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol

Where was the government involved? I mean isn't party activities seporate from government activities? Even though technically it's an extension of government since it's voting but this is the primary not the presidential election. The presidential elections are the ones ran by the state governments.

I'm not even sure what the exact plan is. I have so much going on I can't keep up on everything.
 
49 minutes ago

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 12259
at this point bernie is still the most viable choice, i cannot envision anyone else being the nom. i hope the dnc doesn't meddle and decide to make either arthritic hack biden or mayor pete the fucking nom, that's going to lose the youth dem vote


for all the people
who won't be missed
.

 
36 minutes ago

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12752
traed said:
katsucats said:
It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself.

When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol

Where was the government involved? I mean isn't party activities seporate from government activities? Even though technically it's an extension of government since it's voting but this is the primary not the presidential election. The presidential elections are the ones ran by the state governments.

I'm not even sure what the exact plan is. I have so much going on I can't keep up on everything.
Sure, you can technically argue that the party isn't the same department that will likely oversee Medicare4All, but people aren't going to see that. And they're right. There's no reason to believe that the White House will be much more competent. There's no significant factor that you could point out in the difference between the people the party hire and the people the White House will hire. But at the very least, if they're going to sell this vision to the American people, then there's no room for mistakes at the marketing board room. Yet, this was an egregious mistake.

If I was as inclined toward conspiracy theories as the typical Bernie Bro, we might as well speculate the the party did this intentionally to destroy Bernie.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Top
Pages (2) « 1 [2]