A consumption tax incentivizes hoarding and rent seeking, letting the rich accumulate massive amounts of wealth tax free.

Also, not to continue the main discussion, but Wall St is no longer giving the same premium to growth as it used to. Companies are being forced to have solid profitable businesses, and a P/E of 11.49 on $20B in profit doesn't scream speculative growth, it's right in line with all these banks it claims to beat at this particular type of growth.

TRUMP Debate Preparation Survey

not sure if serious

crowdsourcing a debate is an innovative idea

That survey is fantastic

I don't even know what would be "No" to that question.

I cannot wait for this debate.

This must be why Fanduel took Monday night football off their gpps.

A consumption tax incentives saving, taxes consuming rather than creating, is efficient, incorruptible and is silly to dismiss as regressive when considering those factors and a UBI.

A UBI will greatly balance the labor market, removing death/starvation as the alternative for the job seeker, greatly improving an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Consumption + UBI also leads the best path to economic growth by not discouraging creation and ensuring every citizen the means to pursue their desired outcome.

Brilliant.

This guy gets it.

Please show the math on your proposals and explain the effects thereof. My quick googling of basic figures to understand your proposal shows that your regressive consumption tax pays for like around 1/8 of your UBI proposal. Quite a deficit you got there Lyin Thayer.

Riots in Charlotte. Yes, it will keep. Getting. Worse.

I heard Trump loves debates. He debates all the time. That makes him a mass debater.

Consumption taxes directly harm economic activity but oddly Thayer is all over them.

I'll go back and read the stuff from yesterday after I left and respond, but want to make it clear in advance that I think Stumpf's testimony was poorly planned and poorly stated. I do, however, still believe things like the salary clawbacks should be decided by the board and are not a discussion congress should be involved in.

I will tell you people who definitely need to go to prison though and that's cops who shoot unarmed (or even armed) individuals who are not a threat to their lives. Until they see long sentences in prisons they're gonna keep pulling their triggers.

The entire bank is rife with gaming, both brick and mortar as well as phone/online channels.

Our sales liaison promoted and was replaced by a work friend. Once she started reviewing calls from the other centers she was ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ at all the ethics violations. It was like the Pats vs the Panthers in the SB. If you commit PI every play, the refs won't call it the same for logistical reasons. Jazz used to be same with their fouling.

Also in regards to higher ups and their creation of the environment but retention of plausible deniability:

So our sales rate requirement used to be 12.5%. Meaning you should have a referral to track 12.5% of the time. They started pushing and pushing and pushing. So what was a 12.5% sales expectation (and had been for a long time) was 30% within ~3 years. When the head of phone banking did a town hall someone asked "at what point are the expectations going to plateau?"

"Not until it's 100%" was the reply.

Also, the bulk of these "fake" accounts were people being confused into signing up at the branch. Most of it wasn't straight fraud. This also happens at a larger scale than what's coming out. The branch is nothing but blatant gaming, to the point that people that leave the phones to go to the branch almost all end up quitting or returning to the phones.

almost all of them noticed. and they were pissed obv. but wells fargo was like, ya whatever, too bad. so then the gov came and gave them a slap on the wrist and the bigwigs blamed it on the peons and tried to say that thousands of ppl came up with such a plan independently.

This happened within the last 6 months.

Supervisor is coaching a banker on a call. Only people who struggle with numbers are coached. Obviously negative reinforcement.

Emp: Like what would you refer on this call? There's nothing applicable at all.
Sup: Uh, refer them a second credit card
Employee: An update came out a few weeks ago that we aren't allowed to sell a second credit card anymore
Sup: *rolls her eyes, sighs, walks off*

Guess who ended up getting fired for lack of sales performance?

What happened was:

Customer admitted to opening account but said they didn't really know what was up and the banker told them it was necessary?

Eat it

Customer states they were not involved with opening the account at all?

Went to the Executive Office to investigate. If it turned out they did sign for it (like almost always) then nothing happened. If it was blatant fraud the situation would be remedied and those are the kinds of people that got let go for gaming. After prbly being coached a few times first tho I imagine.

It pains me to see fellow sales people going through such terrible treatment in super negative environments.

Its like the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Didn't he also promise to donate $5 million if Obama was proven to have been born in the US.

I would think he would trust himself as the source on that one, so he should be paying up?

Donald Trump Called Debate Moderator Lester Holt a Democrat. He’s Actually a Republican.

facts dont matter

I believe he is using the term 'Democrat' as a euphemism for 'anyone who graduated the 8th grade.'

My understanding the Trump camp pushed hard to have at least one debate moderated by Space Ghost.

hole in one story may be the most amazing. that is just such an cruel and evil move.

So I watched the full Elizabeth Warren video IN CONTEXT, and Stimpf himself personally setting the goal for accounts per customer at 8 because "Eight Rhymes With Great" when the industry average was around 3, is the "smoking gun" for me. He had to know this would create fraud and actively disregard all evidence thereof. Not to mention the obvious toxicity/cruelty of the work environment this creates.

If he is not criminally responsible for this, then that is a bug not a feature, and throwing maximum HEAT at him is not only completely deserved but is also the only way to change public sentiment such that the laws are changed to make him criminally responsible.

Yeah, isn't she just the worst politician by far? I mean, way worse than the guy who thinks some teachers "have a gay agenda" so we shouldn't teach sex ed, way worse than the guy who denies climate change because it still snows, way worse than the guy who said gays in the military will be bad because they'll be "massaging" each other before going into battle. How dare she INHIBIT GROWTH?