The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Alpo]

You can learn a lot about the economy from the liberal media. Just read what they say, realize it is all BS, and pretty much the opposite is the truth.

Sure. Rather than go to school read the papers and do the opposite. That's a successful life strategy.

 

[jamil]

Too early to make that claim methinks. We need another year or two.....and I'm giving you a mulligan on the data so far under Trump.

If Keynesian economics were correct, tax revenues should have been horribly low. But okay. We'll see how it goes. The thing that's going to bust this nut is boom/bust. Eventually it has to end. It's not sustainable.

 

[nonobaddog]

Sure. Rather than go to school read the papers and do the opposite. That's a successful life strategy.

Once you eliminate the crap, the rest is better.

 

[Alpo]

Why? I have a theory. Let me see if I can work it out here. My theory is that Postmodernism flipped (swapped) the shame triggers. What I mean by that, people feel ashamed for breaking the social rules. That circuitry is pretty much built in though not always activated.

Traditionally in the West, personal responsibility, self-reliance, charity, couth behavior, treat others like you want to be treated were the values. You fall short of those and you felt shame.

So now that the values have been effectively deconstructed, one side holds the other to different standards. To the right, who have not yet given up on traditional values, the left should feel ashamed of violating the right's values based on personal responsibility. But the left doesn't hold those values. They won't feel shame for breaking them, they'll likely feel pretty good about it.

To the left, the right should feel ashamed of violating the left's values based on collective responsibility. But, like the left, they're not going to care about breaking the left's values, and will probably feel pretty good about it.

This doesn't explain Trump, but it explains a lot of why neither side feels ashamed of what the other side accuses. For example, I don't feel ashamed of my white male privilege, and I don't think people should feel shame for that. It's possible they should feel shame for lying on applications, claiming they're a protected minority class when they're not.

And if Warren did that, she should clearly feel shame if she's any sort of a decent person. Should it preclude a run for the presidency? I don't think she's a good candidate for many many reasons, none of which have to do with her declaration of minority status. I think she can be an effective senator and is probably at the level of her competence.

 

[jamil]

And if Warren did that, she should clearly feel shame if she's any sort of a decent person. Should it preclude a run for the presidency? I don't think she's a good candidate for many many reasons, none of which have to do with her declaration of minority status. I think she can be an effective senator and is probably at the level of her competence.

Have you ever heard her question appointment nominees? She really comes off as stupid. Surprising for a Harvard law professor. But she kinda sounds like she wrote a bunch of words on rocks, shook them all up, and then picked out some rocks randomly and said the words. I assume that she asks stupid questions, possibly also asks questions stupidly, because she's a partisan and just can't help herself.

 

[Alpo]

No. My eyes glaze over on almost everything on CSPAN.

But, I do occasionally look at legislation activity. Here is hers:

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/W000817/bills-sponsored/115

 

[EMDX6043]

Too early to make that claim methinks. We need another year or two.....and I'm giving you a mulligan on the data so far under Trump.

Fake news.

Source: Investopedia.

The link below might tell "the rest of the story".

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0918.pdf

 

[EMDX6043]

Don't let your eyes glaze over other relevant data.

 

[Alpo]

Fake news.

Your own quote shows that there is correlation. We weren't discussing paying off the debt. We were discussing LEVEL of debt.

The only thing "fake" about that is that you missed the point.

 

[EMDX6043]

Funny how you fixated on that. I'm glad I added it. #triggered

 

[Alpo]

You looking for an internet win? Keep searching.

 

[EMDX6043]

Aw, come on. Explain why you're calling "mulligan" as it relates to all of the data that's been provided.

 

[T.Lex]

Aw, come on. Explain why you're calling "mulligan" as it relates to all of the data that's been provided.

To be clear, you're basically asking why we can't draw conclusions about the impact on the economy of the first year of changes to the tax code?

Is that really what you're asking?

 

[Alpo]

Because the real impacts of changes in tax law take time to filter through the whole economy. If supply side trickle down works, it takes time to trickle. A couple of more years are necessary to assess the impact, even though the economists might be able to model expected results. The problem with the economists is that none of them agree with each other on any subject.

Edit: Thank you T. Lex. You can tell we aren't economists. We agree on the nature of the question.

 

[EMDX6043]

I gather that you have a problem with the level of debt, so what would an acceptable level be?

I honestly don't know (percentage or otherwise), but gov't revenue is rising so I don't exactly see why that's necessarily bad. If revenue was plummeting, then yes, high levels of debt would be more concerning.

 

[Alpo]

Interest related to the debt is the primary issue. Not so much a problem when borrowing rates are low, but factor in higher interest rates and the economy spends money on debt service rather than military or entitlements, etc. Everybody gets hurt. Print more money to pay off the interest and you get inflation. Fed restricts money supply, recession.

 

[ghuns]

I, for one, am glad to see the old Alpo back.

All his general agreement with the INGO status quo in some recent threads was unsettling to my world order.

 

[EMDX6043]

Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, so why would they effectively shoot themselves in the foot by raising the cost of borrowing money? That doesn't just make the govt spend more on interest payments, but everyone else.

Seems like higher interest rates can result in declining home buying, business expansion, or basically any activity that requires borrowing.

I guess I'm thinking out loud.

 

[Alpo]

I, for one, am glad to see the old Alpo back.

All his general agreement with the INGO status quo in some recent threads was unsettling to my world order.

Get off my lawn.

 

[Alpo]

Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, so why would they effectively shoot themselves in the foot by raising the cost of borrowing money? That doesn't just make the govt spend more on interest payments, but everyone else.

Seems like higher interest rates can result in declining home buying, business expansion, or basically any activity that requires borrowing.

I guess I'm thinking out loud.

You need a macro-economic primer.