|
Debt forgiveness... for entrepreneurs
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
etalian posted:Her campaign message was watch the most qualified canidate in history lose to the most under qualified canidate. Remember that weird moment when she said she'd open up the UFO Files? If she had campaigned on that she might've won.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
I refuse to drink water. Like those aliens from Signs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I remember 2007 when this video was bad. Echo Chamber posted:I remember 2007 when this video was bad. Better messaging than "I'm with her" too
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/854911248135327745
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
I can't imagine a worse takeaway than that if you campaign in a state then people will notice there's an election campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
She's a nasty woman.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:unironically yes, she is 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
zeal posted:it's really gross how hillary has taken advantage of huma abedin's apparently boundless capacities for loyalty, patience and forgiveness down the years Huma Abedin is Gary Walsh from Veep
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Carter started off trying to take an interventionist approach to the economic problems of the late 70s, but was stymied by an obstructionist congress that wouldn't approve his measures. Carter wasn't astute or charismatic enough to pin the blame on congress, so the whole country ate poo poo. Boy doesn't that sound familiar...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Kennedy was arguably the first step on the road to neoliberalism, since his administration was the first to pioneer the "lower income taxes will create greater revenues" line of reasoning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:I actually buy this line of reasoning It worked during the Kennedy administration, which is exactly why everyone who matters still believes in it. There is of course a point of diminishing returns where lowering the income tax won't generate more revenues, because the incentive to invest drops beyond a certain threshold. Especially when the tendency of the rate of profit to fall realizes a crisis point, during which it's more sensible to hoard money for use later when the rate of profit is restored. After the crisis of capital though, the people who are gaining new incomes are the same class which had their income taxes slashed - the rich. The wealth just continues accumulating into the upper classes of society without a redistributive mechanism that used to be adequately funded by taxes on the wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:I agree taxes are a convenient way to force a redistributive mechanism for the failures of capitalism and makes it much less likely politicians can make convincing arguments about why we need to gut our social welfare programs. Those programs are defunded because they represent capital assets that could be purposed in the private sector towards generating more private wealth. The only government programs that remain untouched are those which are vital to the interests of capital, like military expenditures and infrastructure. The practical realization of neoliberalism as the hegemonic ideology, is that even the essentially necessary goods & services of the state like the military & infrastructure can be partially privatized. Those programs are restructured so that private capital can profit directly from government expenditure rather than consequently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that our political professionals are themselves either capitalists or moneyed professionals. Obama was a millionaire before he became president, so why would it be in his interest to devalue his own cash reserves? The fact that Trump was a billionaire businessman was considered a qualifying trait to those who buy in to a culture that venerates the wealthy.comedyblissoption posted:I agree w/ all that, but that isn't in itself an argument against slashing income taxes for the wealthy. The point, I guess, is that those programs considered non-essential to private capital are targeted for cuts, because that's how tax cuts get funded. At some point the accounts have to balance at least enough for the government to make good on its interest payments to service the debt, and it's not the rich who are going to bite the bullet and make a sacrifice when they're the ones who already command the reins of power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:All of that sounds nice, but even letting people accumulate massively more wealth than others, even if everyone had a thorough social safety net, is inherently playing with fire. People get envious easily. "Envy" isn't quite as relevant as the realized suffering caused by the creation of a steadily growing impoverished underclass. Even ignoring the environmental impact, the unceasing process of accumulation and the inescapable crises of capital are precisely why capitalism is unsustainable as a social model. Eventually one tiny group has everything while the vast majority has almost nothing, and those tensions have to come to a head.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:well this is where we get into super controversy territory and where I say with a fiat currency, you don't actually need to balance the federal budget in a traditional sense. you don't need to actually justify tax cuts with government cuts. you don't need to actually justify new programs with new taxes. you can still service the debt because you can just print money like we've already been doing ever since the USD became a fiat currency. of course printing money can cause inflationary forces, but guess what we've been printing money and experiencing inflationary forces and we've been fine. you just need to control inflation in such a way that people are still willing to use your currency. Fiat currencies derive their value from credit, meaning that the government's ability to service its debts are why the currency has value. If you don't tax people to service those debts, then your inflation will go out of control and nobody will buy into your money. Governments have a massive amount of wiggle room when it comes to printing money and taking on debts to honor its obligations, but it's not infinite. The last thing you want is for speculators to panic and think their cash reserves are going to become worthless in the near future. QE doesn't cause hyperinflation because that new money goes towards honoring the banks' existing obligations. They guarantee solvency for the banks at the expense of their creditors, and that new money doesn't circulate because it just sits in existing accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think we kinda need an economic macro thread, because I know my macro is weak. You up for it Pener? You seem like you know poo poo. Maybe you can drag Aoelius in as well. I'm a layman at all this. I know a bit about how it all works because I took Economic History in college, but I'm constantly having to look up stuff just to make sure I'm not getting my premises wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story: They managed her campaign like a brand. Coming soon: Hillary Clinton with an all new human flavor!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It's ALMOST Human! Human Zero
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I think I don't dislike Hillary per say as I more so dislike people who ran her campaign and crafted her entire image into a neoliberal masterpiece. The buck stops with her.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:There's nothing wrong with having them as a balancing force. Politics doesn't need "balance" you just need to win.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:its weird how stokholm syndrome america is with its parties like It's more like Americans think of politics as a dysfunctional family, where Democrats are the mommy and Republicans are the daddy. Sometimes you might get some tough love from daddy, but he really wants what's best for you. Every good family needs a mommy and daddy, right? So of course there needs to be one party to counterbalance the parenting style of the other. It's basically infantile is what I'm getting at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Eh, I'm an idiot  quote:I just don't think the form we have of it now is very good, and it's very predatory. It needs to be regulated, workers need to be protected, banks need to be broken up, etc. That's nice and all, but even a well regulated capitalist state has to draw in superprofits from abroad if the rate of profit can't be guaranteed domestically. Even at the height of the American welfare state, the United States was getting millions of people killed just so we could guarantee access to foreign markets and labor. Anyway, more relevant to the thread: https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/856002248798810113
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:To be fair, 9/11 really did gently caress everyone's minds. Everyone was rallying around the flag. Even Kucinich and Bernie voted for the Afghan war. There's a big leap from being pro-war to actively going out and heckling anti-war demonstrators in their own country.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
War! Huh! Good God y'all What is it good for? Lots and lots of money!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Typo posted:the service industry is a lot more than guys working in walmarts The labor participation rate has steadily been going down since the '08 recession. Everything lines up with capitalist crisis theory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 17:14
|
|