(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

(06-12-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No one is arguing that, in general, Dem positions result in a federal, state, local government that is more active and has more control/power. The issue at hand is George’s desire to try and psychoanalyze the underlying reasoning for those policy positions, and that fundamentally (you know, what those ideas are built on) is the desire for power. I refute that hypothesis and think it is an incredibly smug position to hold.

I don't think it requires psychoanalysis. It think it is organizationally inherent. I think that inside any organization that wields power, there is an inherent craving for additional power. I don't think it's a function of the psychological motivation of any individual or individuals. I simply don't think they can resist.

The only way to avoid the problem is to place strict limits on the amount of power that can accrue, and to put procedures in place to ensure that those limits are enforced. That was the beauty of the American Constitution, but I think those limits have eroded, for a number of reasons. A big one to me is that congress has defaulted a lot of its powers to unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats. Congress actually likes that, because it insulates congress critters from the consequences of their actions. As long at it was the agency that did it, and not me, you can't use it against me in a re-election campaign, even if I did write and/or vote for the enabling legislation.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't think it's a function of the psychology of the individuals involved. I think it is a natural and inevitable result of organizational dynamics and basic human nature. "I just know that we would all be better off if all people did X, so let's force them to do it." It's part of what I have in mind when I say that leftists tend to say (not always but a strong tendency) to say, "We're smarter than you, so we can run your life better than you can, so give us the power to do that." It's a mantra, almost a religion, among government bureaucrats.

(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

There might be a 'wielding' in determining where the cuts go. But the simple act of cutting is a direct and explicit yielding of the overall 'wielding of power'.

I dont think you are quite on board on what a big 'wielding of power' taxes actually are. Or that any discrete cut in and of itself (w/o regard to the process of whom benefits) is an act of a state yielding that discrete portion of power back to someone or some group.

(06-12-2019 02:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

There might be a 'wielding' in determining where the cuts go. But the simple act of cutting is a direct and explicit yielding of the overall 'wielding of power'.

I dont think you are quite on board on what a big 'wielding of power' taxes actually are. Or that any discrete cut in and of itself (w/o regard to the process of whom benefits) is an act of a state yielding that discrete portion of power back to someone or some group.

I see your viewpoint on both of your statements in the last paragraph. Of course wielding of taxes is an act of power. AFAIK neither party is suggesting that we abolish taxes. I will concede that progressives make more noise about using taxes to support various programs in general.

It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class. Using your paradigm this means that conservatives are willing to yield power to the wealthy but not so to the middle class. Elitist?

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

There might be a 'wielding' in determining where the cuts go. But the simple act of cutting is a direct and explicit yielding of the overall 'wielding of power'.

I dont think you are quite on board on what a big 'wielding of power' taxes actually are. Or that any discrete cut in and of itself (w/o regard to the process of whom benefits) is an act of a state yielding that discrete portion of power back to someone or some group.

I see your viewpoint on both of your statements in the last paragraph. Of course wielding of taxes is an act of power. AFAIK neither party is suggesting that we abolish taxes. I will concede that progressives make more noise about using taxes to support various programs in general.

It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class. Using your paradigm this means that conservatives are willing to yield power to the wealthy but not so to the middle class. Elitist?

Probably more economist in that sense. The absolute *best* use of capital is to keep it flowing as fast as you can. When you ease Federal income taxes, that tends to to do two distinct things: a) it keeps capital in the US, thus decreasing capital flight to 'more friendly' tax jurisdictions; and b) it adds to the flow of capital that keeps the grease machine moving. The only monies that dont add to economic grease machine of the US are those that are literally physically hoarded or those that leave the US. Even if it gets stuffed in a bank somewhere -- that means more capital that is able to be used in the economy.

If 47 per cent of the nation actually paid taxes, perhaps those would be in line for a tax break, eh?

Or, if one believes that the friction of taxes and government spending is in any way as beneficial or efficient as the flow of capital otherwise, well, you can certainly think that. Not much grounding to it, but it is free country to do so.

So absent those simple economic issues, your comment on elitism might be valid. I would say that overlooking those issues would kind of not help that point, as a starter.

But, unfortunately, 'conservatives' still have the Friedman/Hayek/Mises/Chicago School strain of economic theory and libertarianism that runs somewhere within that DNA, and that for the most part, imo, drives that simple issue.

Tax cuts have embedded within them both the economic libertarianism issue we are discussing *and* a simple economic impetus. They are, at the same time, the core of an economic regime and a system that defines the integral struggle between governments and individuals and the impact of that struggle on the allocation of power between the two.

(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination.

Which is a pretty good reason why taxes should mostly be broad, uniform, and hard to manipulate. Consumption taxes (which "progressive" Europe relies on) fit that bill nicely. Income taxes (which American "unfettered capitalism" relies on) fit that bill not at all.

More gradations in tax policy means more opportunities for rent-seeking.

The surest way (perhaps the only way) to reduce the influence of money on politics is the reduce the influence of politics on money.

(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

How about uniform tax increases?

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

(06-12-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/anal...ear-later/

"The law was sold as a boon to the middle-class, but it primarily benefits the wealthy. That’s because it’s the rich who own most corporate stock and therefore benefit most from the corporate tax cuts. The richest 1% are expected to get over a fifth (21%) of the tax cuts this year. By 2027 when the law is fully implemented, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. [Tax Policy Center]"

If Congress levied a ten-billion-dollar tax on Warren Buffet on Monday, and then came to its senses and repealed the levy on Tuesday, there are those who would scream "Tax cut gives billions to the rich."

(06-12-2019 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/anal...ear-later/

"The law was sold as a boon to the middle-class, but it primarily benefits the wealthy. That’s because it’s the rich who own most corporate stock and therefore benefit most from the corporate tax cuts. The richest 1% are expected to get over a fifth (21%) of the tax cuts this year. By 2027 when the law is fully implemented, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. [Tax Policy Center]"

https://www.commondreams.org/organizatio...x-fairness

Your source is a progressive organization advocating tax increases on corporations and “the wealthy” to fund increased spending.

So, BS.

Might as well expect an unbiased assessment from AOC.

I will agree that most of the tax cuts go to taxpayers, and the most go to those who pay the most, and very few go to those who pay no federal income tax. Duh. However, the nonfederalincometaxpayers also reap secondary or tertiary benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats. As we can see from jobs reports, unemployment percentages, rising wages, and increased economic activity. Things are going well, so the Democrats want to reverse it.

I am sure that national democrat leaders and strategists are praying for an economic downturn.

I don’t care what percentage goes to what percentage, as long as it results in economic prosperity. And so far, so good.

(06-12-2019 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/anal...ear-later/
"The law was sold as a boon to the middle-class, but it primarily benefits the wealthy. That’s because it’s the rich who own most corporate stock and therefore benefit most from the corporate tax cuts. The richest 1% are expected to get over a fifth (21%) of the tax cuts this year. By 2027 when the law is fully implemented, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. [Tax Policy Center]"

So what?

The purpose of the law was to level the tax playing field worldwide and remove 1) an incentive for US companies to move profitable operations and 2) a disincentive for foreign investment in the US. It appears to be accomplishing both of those goals, and who benefits most from that? The middle class, who get the higher-paying jobs created as a result.

Just sat through a CLE seminar today on that very point.

(06-12-2019 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/anal...ear-later/

"The law was sold as a boon to the middle-class, but it primarily benefits the wealthy. That’s because it’s the rich who own most corporate stock and therefore benefit most from the corporate tax cuts. The richest 1% are expected to get over a fifth (21%) of the tax cuts this year. By 2027 when the law is fully implemented, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. [Tax Policy Center]"

This source is one of the koolaid sellers, and your quote IS the koolaid. Look to BLS statistics to see if the effect is good, not a biased opinion. This is exactly why tax policy is important - for its effect.

(06-13-2019 07:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like conservatives have, when given the opportunity over the past couple decades, provided tax relief for the wealthy. Not so much for the middle class.

Drinking the koolaid, I see.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/anal...ear-later/

"The law was sold as a boon to the middle-class, but it primarily benefits the wealthy. That’s because it’s the rich who own most corporate stock and therefore benefit most from the corporate tax cuts. The richest 1% are expected to get over a fifth (21%) of the tax cuts this year. By 2027 when the law is fully implemented, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. [Tax Policy Center]"

This source is one of the koolaid sellers, and your quote IS the koolaid. Look to BLS statistics to see if the effect is good, not a biased opinion. This is exactly why tax policy is important - for its effect.

The referenced numbers came from the Tax Policy Center. From their website: "The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."

wiki on the Brookings Institute:

"Brookings states that its staff "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan,[2][15] and various media outlets have alternately described Brookings as "conservative",[16] "centrist"[17] or "liberal".[18] An academic analysis of Congressional records from 1993 to 2002 found that Brookings was referred to by conservative politicians almost as frequently as liberal politicians, earning a score of 53 on a 1–100 scale with 100 representing the most liberal score.[19] The same study found Brookings to be the most frequently cited think tank by the U.S. media and politicians.[19]"

"A 2005 academic study by UCLA concluded it was "centrist" because it was referenced as an authority almost equally by both conservative and liberal politicians in congressional records from 1993 to 2002.[19] The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.[16][17][54][55][56][57] The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.[58][59][60][61] The Los Angeles Times has described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before opining that it did not believe such labels mattered.[62][63][64][65]"

This is from the Tax Policy Center's website:

"The Tax Policy Center has released distributional estimates of the conference agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as filed on December 15, 2017. We find the bill would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in both 2018 and 2025. In general, higher income households receive larger average tax cuts as a percentage of after-tax income, with the largest cuts as a share of income going to taxpayers in the 95th to 99th percentiles of the income distribution. On average, in 2027 taxes would change little for lower- and middle-income groups and decrease for higher-income groups. Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025, and 53 percent in 2027."

In any case, 93, you are talking about “fairness” a highly subjective judgement, and one with which I dis agree. You want fairness, abolish the graduated income tax and pass the Fair Tax.

But in reference to the Trump tax cuts, I am talking effect. I am saying a better economy helps us all, and that is what those cuts are producing. I don’t see the point in cutting off our noses to spite our faces, even if some segment of society thinks noseless faces are “fairer”.

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, 93, you are talking about “fairness” a highly subjective judgement, and one with which I dis agree. You want fairness, abolish the graduated income tax and pass the Fair Tax.

But in reference to the Trump tax cuts, I am talking effect. I am saying a better economy helps us all, and that is what those cuts are producing. I don’t see the point in cutting off our noses to spite our faces, even if some segment of society thinks noseless faces are “fairer”.

You're arguing for trickle down economics. The stuff trickling down isn't money...

The way the tide needs to rise is by increasing wages across the board, which has not happened in decades. How to cause that to occur is difficult, but strengthening unions and collective bargaining powers is probably the best, and fastest way to do that. Workers create value for their companies but are not seeing a return for that value.

(06-13-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, 93, you are talking about “fairness” a highly subjective judgement, and one with which I dis agree. You want fairness, abolish the graduated income tax and pass the Fair Tax.
But in reference to the Trump tax cuts, I am talking effect. I am saying a better economy helps us all, and that is what those cuts are producing. I don’t see the point in cutting off our noses to spite our faces, even if some segment of society thinks noseless faces are “fairer”.

You're arguing for trickle down economics. The stuff trickling down isn't money...
The way the tide needs to rise is by increasing wages across the board, which has not happened in decades. How to cause that to occur is difficult, but strengthening unions and collective bargaining powers is probably the best, and fastest way to do that. Workers create value for their companies but are not seeing a return for that value.

Unions are great up to a point. But US unions largely started making demands that priced US production off the world market. So we don't export very much in the way of manufactured goods.

We have lots of natural advantages--agriculture, natural resources, waterways, natural boundaries for defense--so we don't have to engage in a full-blown "race to the bottom." We could actually survive producing and exporting raw materials to overseas manufacturers, and re-importing the manufactured goods. That was the ante bellum American South. But we do have to make it competitive from an ROI viewpoint to manufacture in the USA.

Wages are now increasing because the 2017 tax law made it less disadvantageous to manufacture here. So manufacturing with its higher paying jobs is coming back to some extent. You're not going to raise wages across the board. You're going to start using kiosks long before you pay somebody $15/hour to work fast food, because it's going to become more economically feasible.

You need to try looking at things from the employer's point of view. Then you'll start to understand why employers never do what government bureaucrats plan for them to do.

(06-13-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The way the tide needs to rise is by increasing wages across the board, which has not happened in decades.

Why do wages need to rise? Wages are just prices, and prices are always relative. What really matters is the standard of living -- the level of consumption that people can afford. As long as that continues to rise -- as it has almost monotonically for the last few centuries -- what difference does it make if wages go up or down?

(06-13-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How to cause that to occur is difficult, but strengthening unions and collective bargaining powers is probably the best, and fastest way to do that.

Cartels? That's your economic prescription?

Jobs cartels -- like all cartels -- do a great job of creating barriers to career entry, constricting the availability of jobs, fossilizing industries, discouraging growth, lowering customer service, increasing real costs of everything for everyone, and generating economic rents for cartel members. Which of those outcomes is desirable?

I see Lad has responded with his oh so predictable Socialist platform - workers of the world, unite!

Again, I refer everybody to The BLS statistics. Higher wages, more take home. Clearly unfair. More employment, less unemployment. How mean.


The Democrats don’t hate prosperity. Mainly, they don’t like to see it as a result of Trump’s actions, and they really don’t like it if it makes getting elected tougher.

Back to the agenda - bring down Trump, and don’t care who it hurts.

I’m in Las Vegas, and the crowds are huuuuuge. I think there are a lot of people who could not afford it in 2016, but now, they have $2-4,000 they can spare. I would guess this crowd would split 80-20 for Trump. All independently minded capitalists and true democrats.