So, Joe Biden from Scranton, PA is an elite, but Trump, who received or inherited millions from his father, and was a millionaire by age 8, isn't?
OK.
Civil mismanagement has consequences
- Thread starter GBRforLife1
- Start date
OK.
It’s washing cars. Literally any relatively coherent human and some animals can do it as is the case with most low paying jobs. Google supply and demand. Lots of supply of laborers who chose drugs, teen pregnancy, and whatnot over finishing high school and bettering themselves. Minimum effort decisions breed minimum wage options. It’s called personal responsibility and it’s time this country embraced that again instead of protecting people from it.
I think both the Classical and Keynesian models are deeply flawed. Keynesians did a good job of showing the flaws in classical economics, but their model really isn't a whole lot better as it only focuses on the short term. The fact that it took the field 150 years to show how government intervention can lead to positive economic outcomes shows how flawed and overly simplistic the field of economics is.
I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. Like the responsibility that business owners should be competent enough to come up with a business model that works while paying their workers a decent living wage.
If your aspirations for a living wage is to work at a car wash, I think that’s a sign there are some low aspirations.
I take exception to the term "flaws". Initially, Keynes did see them as flaws but later realized they were inevitabilities, which is why he moved away from his earlier theories even on a fiscal level.
This year more than any other has shown that new-keynesian and neo-classical economics are a farce. The single greatest example of this is oil going to -40 dollars per barrel. That in itself should prove that non-rational behavior in the market is possible and can't be overcome by fiscal or monetary policy, both of which were being manipulated to historical maxes at that point.
Right, rationality is ambiguous at best. And I agree, fiscal and monetary policy is overrated. I'm more interested in looking at policies that can increase productivity or technology growth. All the economic models show that technology growth is good for economic growth. But they don't always acknowledge that certain policies can and do affect technology growth.
I've followed technology and the role it plays in society my whole life. New technologies don't just happen. It takes sustained investment to introduce a new technology into the market. There are certain conditions where companies can benefit and offer this sustained investment themselves. There are other situations where it doesn't happen, even if said introduction of technology would be unambiguously good for the economy and society. In these situations, I favor public policy that can incentivize companies to invest in new technologies, either through rule or regulatory changes or direct subsidies. If these types of incentives don't work to encourage companies to invest in a technology that is good for the economy and society, I think the government should invest in the technology directly. It's amazing how much technology gets ignored given its crucial role in the economy.
Lol - it is a CAR WASH, do you think that demands more than a minimum wage? Think of it this way, when you chop off the bottom rungs of the ladder you make it impossible for people to climb the ladder. It is the same with forcing employers to pay interns, some think they are abused, those would be the communists. Smarter people would understand the skills gained will lead much better paying jobs in the future. As long as no one is forced into a job let freedom reign.
Bingo. Not the business’ responsibility to make your living. Do t smoke pot.
Is this an example of your critical thinking abilities?
Before you leave work can you throw a few extra pizzas in the oven for us?
Did you actually read the entire article?
Conclusion from your post, drugs MAY be a problem (duh) and they don't know how to run a business after 60+ years.
But by definition, if something is crucial to an economy the market will support it on its own. Sure, fiscal policies can speed up the timeline but also have a dampening effect on investment into that product/technology by undermining the risk/reward aspect of the market.
Actually, my policy, as an employer, is that the employees are responsible for making their own pizzas when said pizzas are for their own consumption.
In other words, make your own pizza-- and don't forget to turn the oven off, and lock up.
That's just wrong. When it comes to technology investment especially, crowding in is much more likely to happen than crowding out. When a government finances part of the technology costs, as a business you're more likely to invest in the technology and see returns quicker from the use of that technology.
There's plenty of examples of the market not supporting public goods investment and underinvestment in things like research and development or infrastructure. You even admitted fiscal policy can speed up the timeline, thereby speeding up technology and productivity growth and economic growth in general.
looks like the anarchists are attacking police stations in Paris France now. Apparently France isn't socialist enough for them. It looks very similar to the antifa attacks in our country indirectly organized and funded by Soros operatives. You know, people who belong to the same groups who "fact" check Facebook and Twitter now.
Underinvestment
Here's a simpler read.
Basically spillover effects and externalities of public goods like technology can lead to inefficient market outcomes.
I get the idea in theory, as your links explained. I'd just like an example of where it works.
Think of it like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The only evidence for it is in computer models. The left lives inside a theoretical Universe. If you are owned by infantile emotions, you must create an infantile Universe to live in.
The interstate highway system, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the transcontinental railroad were all massively successful programs that benefited the economy and wouldn't be possible without public support and financing.
The government has also always been heavily involved in providing support, infrastructure financing, and research funding for computing technology, energy and electricity, and telecommunications which are all massive industries.
If you want a more specific example, the government has supported laser research since the beginning. Lasers already have widespread use in many industries and their applications will only continue to grow in the future.
That's not a good thing as they will spread their virus to wherever they end up.
NASA had thousands of breakthroughs that were publicly funded. And was in the 70s and 80s a pet project of the right that the democrats constantly tried to shut down in favor of entitlements.
Public funding is hit or miss. The misses are gargantuan failures and they go on for years.
I use most of those examples you quoted every time a conservative wants to say public funding of projects doesn't work. They definitely can, in places.
Social programs can work when you can afford them. When you are light years beyond broke like we are currently you are not doing anybody any good by begging for more.
Social or entitlement programs can hurt economic growth if they get too big, but I think we are still far from this point. That's why I'd favor a public option healthcare system over Medicare for All. But I think well directed Social spending can improve economic outcomes by reducing crime, improving public health, improving consumer demand, and incentivizing productivity growth.
But yes there are failures at times when it comes to social welfare spending. That's why I prefer government support for things like research and development, education, support for nationally vital industries, especially new ones, and incentives for productivity growth. And yes, NASA is a good example of this type of investment.
NASA was cold war military funding by a different name. The interstate hwy system was sold behind closed doors as a way for the military to move equipment around during WW3. That's why Eisenhower had that bizarre "military industrial complex" speech right before he left office. He felt everything the gov't did was in service to the military (military spending btw is a legit function of gov't because protecting the nation is priority 1). Within 15 years of that speech the power was flipped, instead of military priorities we had bleeding heart family-destroying, education-destroying, science-destroying, treasury-destroying SJW priorities. Completely changed society for the worse. Yes, the gov't can throw money at things and get results. But that implies if the gov't doesn't throw money at something you won't get the results. Which isn't true. The gov't was an impediment to space industrialization for decades. And still is in many ways. OSHA b.s., EPA b.s., F.A.A. b.s.
The gov't does have a role to play. But we should always err on the side of too little gov't. And the last time we did that was a century ago.
Last edited:
You both quoted my philosophy damn near to a T. I was mostly throwing him a bone to crush him with.
When it comes down to it, if you can't balance a budget your social program will create inflation. So you are robbing those who need on the back end to pay for stuff for those who need. It's a lying crock of shit.
And for those who say inflation isn't happening... well... try using the same stats as the 70s and you'd see we are just as bad over the last few years (above 6% a lot of the time). And you wonder why there is social unrest beyond the media spouted "reasons".
The rich are getting richer because you keep bailing them out. That's keynesian/democrat economics for you.
Clown magic. Have you ever had a thought that was original? Tie those big shoes and dance. You'll fit in the car.
Why are Bidens kids millionaires by the hundreds? Trumps kids were already wealthy and you can have as many IRS sources as you wish. Trump and his families IRS filings would be indecipherable by most accountants. Trump didn't become wealthy by being a politician. How do you feel about political favors?
Here some info on Hunter Biden. Certainly looks nefarious to me.
Hunter Biden Is Worth At Least $3 Million
Hunter Biden has an estimated net worth of $3 million. He served as one of the board members of several international companies in the past, including the Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings where he allegedly received $50,000 monthly salary.
www.ibtimes.com
Sorry, but there's no way I'm counting a guy from Scranton that started as middle class part of the elite, but not counting a guy with a million in an account before age 8 as being part of the elite.
Both of Biden's sons also served in the military. How many of Trump's kids did so?
And you are high off your ass if you don't think Trump's children benefitted from their dad.
Last edited:
Both? Just googled it. Deceased one Beau was a lawyer in JAG and so obviously being groomed for high level politics its not even funny. The other, Hunter, i believe? Was in for a month at age of 43 after having Daddy get him an exemption (likely so he could use it on his politician resume without ACTUALLY serving) iirc and kicked out for cocaine, which he blamed on cigarettes laced with coke he got from other people.Here some info on Hunter Biden. Certainly looks nefarious to me.
Hunter Biden Is Worth At Least $3 Million
Hunter Biden has an estimated net worth of $3 million. He served as one of the board members of several international companies in the past, including the Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings where he allegedly received $50,000 monthly salary.
Sorry, but there's no way I'm counting a guy from Scranton that started as middle class part of the elite, but not counting a guy with a million in an account before age 8 as being part of the elite.
Both of Biden's sons also served in the military. How many of Trump's kids did so?
And you are high off your ass if you don't think Trump's children benefitted from their dad.
Still military, which none of Trump's offspring have done. Plus, Beau actually deployed to the Middle East.
Still also not explaining how someone with $1 million in their account at age 8 isn't part of the elite.
The WHO basically said Lockdowns don't do shit and now this from the CDC?
thefederalist.com
What are we doing here? Stadiums 100% lets go.
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks
Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.
thefederalist.com
What are we doing here? Stadiums 100% lets go.
The locations in the report included places where there is no way they were wearing face coverings the entire time they were there, such as restaurants, bars, and coffee shops. Not to mention the fact that masks are to block one's own respiratory droplets, and not to so much to protect the wearer.The WHO basically said Lockdowns don't do shit and now this from the CDC?
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks
Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.
What are we doing here? Stadiums 100% lets go.
You also need to make up your mind on the WHO. We weren't supposed to pay attention to them anymore, remember?
Maybe we should just be happy we're getting Husker football this season. No one is stopping you from watching the game from your favorite Lincoln watering hole.
Last edited:
The WHO basically said Lockdowns don't do shit and now this from the CDC?
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks
Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.
What are we doing here? Stadiums 100% lets go.
Did you actually read the report? It wasn’t about efficacy of masking, it showed that people who got infected were more likely to have eaten inside a restaurant in the 2 weeks prior to infection. The conclusion of the article is that we should limit indoor dining, bars and coffee shops.
I was told to listen to the science.. The scientists! They know everything.. WRONG! Just proving a point. No one knows shit and if they tell you different they are lying.
But you aren’t listening to science, you are listening to a “journalist” interpretation of a report, which draws a completely illogical summary to fit their belief and has no factual basis in the report.
Nobody is claiming a mask is 100% effective, it’s a layer of protection along with distancing from others. Much like you have a deadbolt on a door, but you also keep a gun for protection. Or seat belts and airbags. They work together for the desired outcome.
Economics shows that wages would go up if we didn’t have illegal immigrants flooding the market with cheap labor. Supply and demand. Too much cheap labor wages stay down. Shortage of cheap labor wages go up. Democrats can’t support illegal immigration if they want higher wages
Similar threads
