Lol. You're a work of art if you think others have to have the same mindset as you, Howard.

And I'm not trying to be mean or flame you.

Mason, those are examples of technology lowering the barrier of entry and increasing productivity.

Not sure how it relates to any government policy. If your view is that the government should invest in science, then I agree.

When did I say that? I rarely meet someone of the same mindset as me.

Pretty amazing you failed to answer the question while having a stunning lack of self-awareness in how you have insulted people who you thought were communists or politically left leaning.

A livable minimum wage isn't "guaranteed success." How privileged and out of touch with reality do you have to be to think that? It's been discussed and written over and over that things such as affordable education, affordable healthcare encourage entrepreneurship. You seem to think that giving entrepreneurs room for error or decreasing the barriers to entry would hurt them. I don't follow this logic and neither does any economist.

What did "pull up" even mean? Did you invent a new term that is basically "bootstraps" for the uninitiated? You clearly don't even understand trickle down economics at a basic level if you are conflating "being able to use a computer" with trickle down economics.

The more you post the less about you I understand, because it shows you understand very little about the world. You don't have a strong grasp on politics, economics or any of the topics being discussed in this thread.

lol @ this trumpkin whining about being insulted for being a trumpkin. Like, that comes with the territory? Imagine a criminal asking a square John the same question after being insulted for how he makes his living, that's how absurd this sounds to some of us.

But he wasn't insulting me.

MM

What if you sort by percentages?

Trump loves them RAW POINT TOTALS though



He got the "record fastest 1000 point move" part right!

Ha, I never saw that, but I pretty much avoid his tweets to remain sane. I agree he deserves no credit for the gains thus far (or losses over the last two trading days), he just inherited an already great economy and is riding Obama's coattails. It's sad how quick those like Mason forget how terrible GWB's economic polices were, while I agree some corporate tax reform was needed, the top individual tax rates absolutely should not have been cut. I thought it would have taken a lot longer than 8 years to start making the same mistakes all over again.

And market has had large point gain days in these administrations also. Black Monday in 1987 was the mother of all declines. But yeah it is dumb posting and yeah TRUMP tweets are dumb too. Dems pointing out a day with a large decline is like totally fair given TRUMP's chortling about the stock market advances.

Stocks ain't cheap at these valuation levels. TRUMP's new Fed Chairman may get more aggressive in tightening monetary policy than Yellen was. Next FOMC meeting in late March. By then Powell will have had another BLS report to evaluate. Market volatility ftw.

Back to the regularly scheduled thread that has morphed into bashing TRUMP, Mason, and the USA brand of capitalism.

As anyone defined what is meant by "Trump's economy"? Are we just talking the massive tax breaks for the rich? Or is there something else that's being included?

Guess it could include Trumpkins no longer declaring reports of every positive economic indicator FAKE NEWS and acting accordingly.

Before some dumbass says BUT LIBS DO IT TOO, yes we are very concerned about the real harm Trump is inflicting on people and his pronouncements that he intends to cause harm on more people. And his authoritarian actions and declarations.

But no we do not say the stock market is down when it take two seconds to realize it is very obviously up, we do not say unemployment is increasing when it is obviously decreasing.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...se-under-Obama

We do not say that we are living in a dystopian hellhole only to declare slightly improved conditions a year later to be a golden age.

Literally all Mason did in that editorial was wishcast a booming economy over the next three years (how's that panning out?) and gripe about the fact that people on 2p2 don't like Trump. There's no explanation for what specific policies are going to help poker, no mention of how the first year under Trump went. I know you normally read Dinesh D'Sousa-grade material, but you have to admit this was hot garbage even by those standards.

Even worse has been his performance in this thread, where he has ignored many of the legitimate criticisms and questions here, instead choosing to focus on the nonsense.

It's funny bc Mason is in a position where he could inform his readers as to how the poker economy did over the past eight years, how it fared in 2017, etc. That would have been a legitimately useful editorial for his readers.

I didn't think the article very good myself, fwiw, there really wasn't much to it. I'm itt bec of how I started my first reply: This thread is hilarious w/ half of it simple piling on. Stick to facts and I keep my mouth shut.

And I'm not sure that he's griping on 'people on 2p2 don't like Trump' bec there are certainly huge numbers on 2p2 who DO like Trump. More likely he's griping that the regs on this sub-forum don't like Trump and that's a failure of insight on your part.

Finally, I read a single D'Sousa book bec someone knocked that particular one in some thread and I took the time to read it and make my own decision. Do you ever take the time to do something like that?

Donald Trump is GREAT for poker. look at all the new poker rooms, since his inauguration we've had X new poker rooms open. the average poker wager in las vegas has jumped from Y in 2016 to Z in 2017. Players are happier now that a white supremacist is president, and everyone is seeing more hands per hour. X more hands per hour.

note to self: fill in variables with fake numbers because who cares i'm just making this up off the top of my head

Where's my $4,000?

No, I specifically asked Mason to provide a detailed analysis of what metrics we can track under the Trump Ecnomy related to poker, and he has been completely silent on that question.

this thread isn't your safe space my guy

If I'm playing my mother in Chess and she hangs her queen, I'm taking her queen. If I'm playing her in Poker and I have the nuts, I'm betting. Why would we be playing the game if not to play the game? How is it wrong to play the game you both sat down to play?

Furthermore, if you wouldn't bet against your mother, why is it ok to bet against strangers?

Spite-read ****ty books just to stick it to the libs? No, I don't think I've ever done anything like that, but I can recommend some horrible movies for you if you'd like.

I agree this forum is aids but I like you so I'm going to respond to this.

Fundamentally, the statement you quoted isn't necessarily true. The question is how much of that money goes to poker, not how much money total is out there.

Look at different times - in the late 90s the economy was roaring, was poker better or worse than in 2009 at the height of the Great Recession?

Look at the distribution of people in your cardroom. In the SFBA, probably 75% of the players are from the bottom 50% of incomes. Will these people benefit in any meaningful way from the tax cuts?

Economic multipliers work best when people spend money. Ignoring the question of what is right and wrong, it's simply the case that poor people tend to spend their extra money and rich people tend to save it.

50 years ago, maybe even 30, the economy was linked to employment. Give a corporation a tax cut, they would invest in workers, because more workers meant more output. That's no longer the case. The stock market has skyrocketed, enriching investors, enriching the already wealthy - but median wages have been flat for 20 years (average wages are skewed upwards because of a small number of high earners).

I know you like the whole "technology will make us obsolete" line and I think it's partially true, but where it's most true is in exactly the people who are most likely to be poker donators. The number of people who are taking their paper paychecks and cashing them at a casino is plummeting. And it's probably a good thing for their families and a bad thing for poker and that's maybe a tough political decision if you're a poker player without a family, I don't know (I'm batting 0-0.5 for 2 on those criteria). But it's certainly not as simple as "money money = better poker."

Not that anyone asked for this, but here are some policies that I think are reasonable and non-partisan.

1. Lifting the limits for tracked currency. $10,000 for a CTR was set in the 60s, the inflation adjusted amount would be $50,000 today. Small restaurants would appreciate this change too.

2. Simplifying the tax code for recreational players. Making people list their losses in itemized deductions is demoralizing. Just let everyone net everything. This is a policy that was built around lottery winnings - large, verifiable winnings with small, unverifiable losses. For poker, this just doesn't make sense. Policy wise it would be something like this: "you're allowed to net if no single session win or loss exceeds X times your net (or Y dollars), whichever is bigger"

ideally, donald trump would appoint an AG who wouldn't challenge ALLOWING online poker economies to exist if their state creates one via their legislature, but that's the opposite of what he did.

The problem is that the way the Constitution is written (or interpreted), almost anything on the Internet is interstate commerce and under federal jurisdiction.

Consider if a player in Pennsylvania uses a Californian ISP to send a bet to a New Jersey-based company to play poker against another Pennsylvanian. Can Kansas tax the bits of data that pass through its borders?