I'm pretty sure 98% of these people didn't vote or if they did they voted for Bernie.

I'm pretty sure that 98% of these people wouldn't use the insurance if they had it. They just go to the ER when they have an emergency.

How about those Obama campagne promises? How did that work out for ya?

End of thread!

Yeah but what about those Trump kahmpayne promises? Not working out too well, huh?

Well the simplest example is the propensity of workers to, at a certain level of increasing compensation, work less. This is just an empirical observation of human behavior. Are you just pretending not to understand because you are running out of better places to hide?

Say I am a wealthy business owner, a "job creator" in the parlance of the derposphere. My goal is to make millions. Once I make them, I want to diversify into lower risk instruments, naturally. So maybe high taxes on the wealthy could incentivize them to make up the lost tax obligation with more aggressive, higher risk investment.

I actually do have an answer. Generally speaking, anything the state does to enhance the growth of an industry can be used as a stick. Government investment is what creates the innovation fueling the tech sector. What you see as cool new products put out by tech companies are actually little more than branding and packaging of technology development with taxpayer money, usually through the pentagon. I figure we can use patent control to place some constraints on tech companies by placing conditions on the proliferation of the tech we the people have developed, such as having a certain percentage of their workers be U.S. citizens working in the U.S. They can still rich but they will have to pay U.S. workers a decent salary in return for being allowed to capitalize on taxpayer investments. The owners won't get as rich, but who the **** cares about that???

sick life

You don't know that.

As bad as he is, she could have been worse. Both are very bad; one is competent. In such a scenario I would opt for the incompetent one since they are going to be less likely to achieve their bad agenda.

I voted Green and I feel good about it. The day after the election I was a little queasy. But since then, going over my reasoning, I feel good. If my vote was the one which would have won it for Hillary I would have been fine with it.

Guy who doesn't understand how marginal tax rates work is trying to tell me how economics works.

You have missed the point about a consumer based economy and a strained middle and lower class. You have missed the illustration that low interest rates on literally every fixed income class and all time high asset prices shows there is not a dearth of capital. Giving wealthy people more money accomplishes what exactly in this given set of circumstances?

You have no point because you don't understand the conversation. Trump eliminating "regulations" is not going to make you or anyone else successful. Understanding how stuff works will.

Titled, a lot of what you said is wrong but I think the worst are probably that consumer spending drives economic growth and putting money in the bank somehow is worse than someone spending it.

Spending doesn't drive an economy. Innovation drives an economy.

Money in the bank allows banks to loan money out for people to buy houses, cars, start business, etc.

Old, white people in red states voted for a Democrat who wasn't his party's nominee?

Eh, it takes both sides of the coin. Innovation is important as is having a base of consumers to spend. Money available for saving/investing is good but the return on it will diminish if there is too much of it relative to money being spent.

Also the policy that results in the largest total economy size is not necessarily the best policy; it also depends how that pie is distributed.

To be fair, I am not an economist so I'm open to the idea that some things I've said are wrong; I think you are correct in saying that I've overstated the degree to which consumer spending > savings, as long as those savings are lent out and invested.

You are both correct.

I didn't say that. You asked what a rich person could do that wouldn't benefit society the answer was consume. You could make a case that a rich person having more will "grow the economy" more on average since they consume less, but that leads to the question of how much of a priority it should be to maximize economic growth.

Of course not, because they all recognize that economic growth isn't the only consideration when it comes to public policy.


Well, you said "find an economist who believes taking more than we currently are from the rich will benefit society or the economy long term." so i gave you a couple of examples. The point to take away from this is that economists don't necessarily believe that the policy that maximizes economic growth is the one that's best for society.

hi, mouthbreather...

couple questions:

1) what is it about Trumptards wanting to cut cancer research funding?
2) is that really how someone like you spells campaign?

This is not a place for personal attacks. This is a content thread.

Thanks

Get back to me in a couple years. A few hundred days into a Presidency is too small of a sample size to judge.

We can judge 8 years of Obama.

Also, and this is to everyone, please take the time to THINK before responding. Posts like this waste all of our time.

Lol who cares about Obama. You might not have noticed but this is the TRUMP thread bro .

I don't really want to THINK I just want to enjoy TRUMP supporters looking stupid.

Why yes I have noticed. In fact, I'm the owner of this thread.

BTW...shouldn't I be getting paid now that we've gone over 100k posts?

You did? But then why talk about OBAMA in the TRUMP thread silly goose?

To add context to a lop sided attack.

Haha silly goose it looks bad when you defend TRUMP by comparing him to the worst President we ever had though, sad!

First, stop calling me silly goose. It's creepy!

Second, I'm not comparing Trump to Obama nor am I defending him.

But, silly gosling, you did lol. See when you you tie TRUMP to Obama.

Sad!

That really backfired on you didn't it, you mischievous gander you.

I agree that trying to maximize GDP isn't always the best policy in the same way slightly +EV decisions aren't always best for regular day decisions we face in real life/poker.

Of course the banks are trying to lend the money out. If they take in money and don't lend it out they are likely losing money and definitely losing EV.

*U.S. APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS BLOCK ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN

Lol, wow, what a failure TRUMP is, he can't even get a travel ban through the courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.5ed092ed35e6


Damn, noted beta male Donald TRUMP gets cucked in handshake with Macron, sad.