(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:
On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.
These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

I don't believe Mrs. Clinton would be any better at the presidency than she's been at any of her previous gigs.

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:
On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.
These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

No it doesn't. Complaining that a disproportionate amount of wealth is held within the wealthiest X% doesn't mean that you think wealth is fixed, it's simply a descriptive statement of the wealth *that currently exists*.

(04-18-2015 06:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:
On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.
These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

No it doesn't. Complaining that a disproportionate amount of wealth is held within the wealthiest X% doesn't mean that you think wealth is fixed, it's simply a descriptive statement of the wealth *that currently exists*.

That's not what I said, is it?

(04-18-2015 05:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:

On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.

These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

I should have said many believe the economy is finite. I'm sure there are also many that believe our economy is capable of growing (or shrinking).

The problem is that very, very few libs ever talk about growing the economy. Instead, they are consumed with redistributing what we already have.

Fair enough on the first point, but as to the second point, what do you mean by 'grow the economy'? Are you talking overall GDP growth? Stock market growth? Median income growth?

I will admit that I'm not extremely concerned with the growth of the stock market, overall GDP I do find important, and median income growth is most important. These are all forms of economic growth. Of course, all things being equal I want all to grow, like any american naturally would.

(04-18-2015 06:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 05:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I should have said many believe the economy is finite. I'm sure there are also many that believe our economy is capable of growing (or shrinking).
The problem is that very, very few libs ever talk about growing the economy. Instead, they are consumed with redistributing what we already have.

Fair enough on the first point, but as to the second point, what do you mean by 'grow the economy'? Are you talking overall GDP growth? Stock market growth? Median income growth?
I will admit that I'm not extremely concerned with the growth of the stock market, overall GDP I do find important, and median income growth is most important. These are all forms of economic growth. Of course, all things being equal I want all to grow, like any american naturally would.

They tend to move together. You can manipulate the stock market without moving the others much, as has been done with QE. But most of the time they move together, so the distinction you are attempting to make fails.

I will answer your question--all of them.

(04-18-2015 06:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:
On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.
These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

No it doesn't. Complaining that a disproportionate amount of wealth is held within the wealthiest X% doesn't mean that you think wealth is fixed, it's simply a descriptive statement of the wealth *that currently exists*.

That's not what I said, is it?

The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

(04-18-2015 06:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

But that has nothing to do with the point I made, does it?

(04-18-2015 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

But that has nothing to do with the point I made, does it?

It directly opposing the point you made, that a leftist making that statement must believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

(04-18-2015 07:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

But that has nothing to do with the point I made, does it?

It directly opposing the point you made, that a leftist making that statement must believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

You really don't understand, do you?

You know everything but understand nothing.

(04-18-2015 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

But that has nothing to do with the point I made, does it?

It directly opposing the point you made, that a leftist making that statement must believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

You really don't understand, do you?

You know everything but understand nothing.

Maybe you didn't explain it well enough? I don't know, I'm just not seeing it right now, don't know what to else to say. But ending your post with a snarky comment like that when you clearly haven't tried to explain what you mean is pretty Torchy of you. If you have a different perspective, then state it. Claiming 'THIS JUST DOESN'T APPLY' when I state clearly *why* I think it does is weak and not conducive to actually expressing your opinions/argument.

(04-18-2015 07:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point still stands, because it's still just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity.

But that has nothing to do with the point I made, does it?

It directly opposing the point you made, that a leftist making that statement must believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

You really don't understand, do you?

You know everything but understand nothing.

Maybe you didn't explain it well enough? I don't know, I'm just not seeing it right now, don't know what to else to say. But ending your post with a snarky comment like that when you clearly haven't tried to explain what you mean is pretty Torchy of you. If you have a different perspective, then state it. Claiming 'THIS JUST DOESN'T APPLY' when I state clearly *why* I think it does is weak and not conducive to actually expressing your opinions/argument.

If you wish to continue this, then go back, read my initial comment, and respond to what I actually wrote. Unless you do that, I have no interest in continuing. If you think what you've written is responsive to my comment, then you don't understand my comment. And I wrote in English words with plain meanings.

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:
On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.
These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

Ok, this isn't true "because it's just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity." If you want to extend it to multiple years, then extend my statement. Nothing about your statement implies that the economy is fixed.

(04-18-2015 06:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 05:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:15 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  More on the difference between libs and conservatives:

On the economy ... libs believe it is a fixed, zero sum game. Conservatives believe it is a living, growing entity.

On the Constitution ... libs believe it is a living, breathing document that can (and should) be interpreted differently by each generation. Conservatives believe it means what it says and the principles do not (should not) change with the times.

These two differences result in 99% of our domestic public policy debates.

The constitutional statement has some validity, but the economic one is just wholesale wrong and inaccurate to any educated liberal I know.

I should have said many believe the economy is finite. I'm sure there are also many that believe our economy is capable of growing (or shrinking).

The problem is that very, very few libs ever talk about growing the economy. Instead, they are consumed with redistributing what we already have.

Fair enough on the first point, but as to the second point, what do you mean by 'grow the economy'? Are you talking overall GDP growth? Stock market growth? Median income growth?

I will admit that I'm not extremely concerned with the growth of the stock market, overall GDP I do find important, and median income growth is most important. These are all forms of economic growth. Of course, all things being equal I want all to grow, like any american naturally would.

"Grow the economy" traditionally means all indexes. I believe it's a recent phenomenon that we have some segments growing, some staying flat, and some in reverse. That's an economy out of whack, and (IMHO) it happens because government has probably established rules that favor one segment over the others.

(04-18-2015 07:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

Ok, this isn't true "because it's just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity." If you want to extend it to multiple years, then extend my statement. Nothing about your statement implies that the economy is fixed.

Where in my comment do I say anything about a world of fixed wealth for eternity?

This is from the American Thinker, so many will disparage the source, but I think it encapsulates Hillary in a way that left and right might agree.

Quote:Watching Hillary Clinton reach out and touch ordinary Americans is excruciating. In working a crowd of regular folks, Hillary is fingernails on the blackboard in a pantsuit. It is difficult to imagine anyone more out of touch with her own affect, movement, and connection to the people around her. She is unable to talk, touch, listen or smile in a natural manner. She doesn't seem to know what to do with her hands, where to direct her eyes, her scope of awareness is restricted. A blind person with a stick would be better than Hillary Clinton at reading people around her.

(04-18-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When a leftist says that the "rich" get rich by taking from the poor, that leftist is necessarily assuming that the economy is a fixed, zero-sum game.

Ok, this isn't true "because it's just a statement of wealth *at that particular time*. In no way does that describe a world of fixed wealth for eternity." If you want to extend it to multiple years, then extend my statement. Nothing about your statement implies that the economy is fixed.

Where in my comment do I say anything about a world of fixed wealth for eternity?

I apologize, I'm not exactly sure why i thought that was necessarily pertinent, it's what I get for trying to read research and post here at the same time. I still don't think your statement inherently implies a zero-sum game view of the economy, though, but I don't really think it's an important point to either of our points of view on this topic.

Fair enough. Apology accepted.

My comment was addressed toward a very specific point. When most leftists talk about the "rich," there seems to be this implication that somehow they took it from everybody else. That can only be the case if it's a closed zero-sum system. What is actually happening is that the "rich" are investing outside the system, because they can make more money there. This necessarily impacts the poor and particularly middle class negatively, because the middle class jobs are now in Germany or Poland or Slovakia or wherever, instead of here (not very often in China or the third world, the jobs going there are not jobs that would support a middle class if they were here). It's not a "distribution" problem, that would only be the case if it were a closed, zero-sum system.

The "for eternity" part of your comment is where I really take exception. Obviously things change over time, so nothing is fixed for eternity. But here again, the left insists on static rather than dynamic analysis of policy decisions, as if it were fixed for eternity. I don't think most leftists truly understand or comprehend that this is an essential point to their argument.

To be clear, my original comments weren't directed so much at you as to other left-leaning posters on here. IIRC you really haven't fallen into these fallacies to the extent some of the others have.

(04-19-2015 07:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fair enough. Apology accepted.

My comment was addressed toward a very specific point. When most leftists talk about the "rich," there seems to be this implication that somehow they took it from everybody else. That can only be the case if it's a closed zero-sum system. What is actually happening is that the "rich" are investing outside the system, because they can make more money there. This necessarily impacts the poor and particularly middle class negatively, because the middle class jobs are now in Germany or Poland or Slovakia or wherever, instead of here (not very often in China or the third world, the jobs going there are not jobs that would support a middle class if they were here). It's not a "distribution" problem, that would only be the case if it were a closed, zero-sum system.

The "for eternity" part of your comment is where I really take exception. Obviously things change over time, so nothing is fixed for eternity. But here again, the left insists on static rather than dynamic analysis of policy decisions, as if it were fixed for eternity. I don't think most leftists truly understand or comprehend that this is an essential point to their argument.

To be clear, my original comments weren't directed so much at you as to other left-leaning posters on here. IIRC you really haven't fallen into these fallacies to the extent some of the others have.

Well, I guess I'd just characterize most people who say that statement as meaning 'the rich have monopolized most of the economic gains recently, which result in less economic growth for lower earners'. Admittedly, a far more nuanced statement than 'THEY STOLE OUR MONIES', but I don't think offhandedly saying your statement inherently means a person doesn't understand that wealth is not zero-sum.

And I agree that we should worry about the effects taxation/regulation has on business growth, but I worry about many of the comparisons people make. You've got it on point with talking about true middle class jobs, and limiting it to jobs that would actually support a middle class. It's when people start acting like we need to compete with china over poorly paid, dangerous, and highly polluting industrial jobs that my eyes start glazing over. Growth is good, but I think you'd agree that growth at all costs is not.

(04-19-2015 08:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, I guess I'd just characterize most people who say that statement as meaning 'the rich have monopolized most of the economic gains recently, which result in less economic growth for lower earners'. Admittedly, a far more nuanced statement than 'THEY STOLE OUR MONIES', but I don't think offhandedly saying your statement inherently means a person doesn't understand that wealth is not zero-sum.

The "rich" have monopolized growth only if you limit the discussion to the USA. The poor and middle classes have actually done quite well, thank you, in many other parts of the world. There are even places that have a middle class today that didn't have one 30-40 years ago. And much of the progress in other countries is a result of direct investment by "rich" Americans and US corporations.

Quote:And I agree that we should worry about the effects taxation/regulation has on business growth, but I worry about many of the comparisons people make. You've got it on point with talking about true middle class jobs, and limiting it to jobs that would actually support a middle class. It's when people start acting like we need to compete with china over poorly paid, dangerous, and highly polluting industrial jobs that my eyes start glazing over. Growth is good, but I think you'd agree that growth at all costs is not.

This is a very important point. Ross Perot understood it better than any US politician in my lifetime. I'm quite certain that no current high profile democrat or republican understands it. Rand gets at least part of it, we've discussed it. But not many people do get it.

With you totally in this paragraph until the last sentence. I don't think the problem is "growth at all costs." It has been my experience that it's the left, not the right, that tries to deflect every attempt to discuss policy in this area with it's "race to the bottom" rhetoric. Our problem is not that we aren't competitive with China, and the solution sure as hell is not to try to compete with China. Germany can't compete with China, but they do quite well by focusing on what they can do better than China. We need to become competitive with Germany, not China. And poorly paid, dangerous, and polluting jobs are not the way to do that. Better education (specifically vocational education), better infrastructure, competitive taxes (not just for those who can bribe congress to give them loopholes), and getting rid of counter-productive regulations and byzantine regulatory processes and procedures are the ways to do that.