Bernie Sanders at his best

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think what has started us down this road is unrealistic expectations...everyone thinks they have a god given right to go to college, buy a house, have a cushy job, get 6 weeks vacation every year, a company that pays your retirement...the american dream right? But how many people actually know what it takes to get there... what have we really done as a nation to make this sort of thing a reality for most people?

We try to subsidize higher education by making it easy to get student loans (that would be cheaper than normal) and what happens? Tuition prices go up every year, and this makes sense now that most high school graduates can get into some kind of college. What they don't realize is that education isn't necessarily going to get them a whole lot, and half the population that goes to college gets saddled with debt for a degree they didn't need, or that they didn't even earn because they failed out. Instead of making it easier to get student loans, they should make it more difficult: prove to the lender that not only are you a great candidate, but that you actually have intentions of doing something with your degree. I actually think a state run university system that was fully paid for would be better than the subsidies we have. We could focus more on vocational or technical two year universities, make unemployed go to mandatory classes on job searching or career building that are actually useful...do something to make the american worker more productive, not just blame rich people for being rich.

Same with healthcare...I could potentially be behind a state run healthcare system, but the way it is now is a joke, and no this is not a rail against obamacare. It started decades ago when they made medical benefits non taxable (essentially a subsidy.) The result is expected: a higher demand for an artificially low priced item (for some at least.)

Defense spending: Do I really need to explain why we don't need to spend as much on defense as the next 14 highest countries combined? (Or whatever the number is.) But good luck getting a defense budget slashed, I live near DC and half my friends either work for the DOD or some defense contractor. And remind me, is it republocrats or demuplicans who support a smaller defense budget...I forget.

Politics: How much money is wasted every year on electing people who promise all this crap, but really the only difference is what special interest groups have them in their pocket: yes there are some politicians who aren't like that (maybe?) Aren't contributions to a political party tax deductible? It's no wonder political spending is out of control.

Unions...UNIONS. Don't get me started, I'll just mention that in LA unions supported a $15 minimum wage, then wanted an exemption. Talk about looking out for your workers. Unions aren't the solution, we just flat out need to make american workers more productive, not try to just protect them.

rant over

^ I agree. A lot of this hunger for loans is driven by the desire for Americans to have massive, brand new homes that are far beyond the reasonable ability to pay. Students spending oodles of money on college when maybe they shouldn't have even gone in the first place, or should have gone to community college etc. Lots of truth in this post.

You also have to realize productivity isn't the problem. US workers are insanely productive, probably the most productive in the developed world. Productivity has increased over the last decade while wages have decreased. Also, as I stated, many of our unions are corrupt and ineffective. That isn't a failing with the entire concept of unions, just like a single corporation being corrupt and malevolent isn't damning of the entire concept of corporations as a whole. A corporation can be socially responsible just like a union can be. The problem is, unions have become such a fringe concept and have become so detached from our culture that we have trouble running them properly.

Look at how our employment culture has become. People look at jobs like they are a favor instead of a bilateral between employer and employee. The idea that "Oh man I'm lucky to have this job, oh thank you boss, anything boss. You want to fire my coworker and give me all his responsibilities without a commensurate increase in pay? Okay, sure, I'm just glad to have this job" is a poisonous, very real, and very pervasive attitude in the current market. And it's something that needs to end in order for labor to make any progress. Much of the trend of corporate profits increasing while wages remain stagnant is rooted here, in the spinelessness of the American worker. Organized labor, when used with reason and restraint, is a tool to give the employee the power to resist unreasonable demands.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune

The rules of 'fairness' and the 'free market' dictate that everything that is happening right now is okay . . . . Yep, you've found one way in which financial institutions use non free-market mechanisms to make money.

I think we can both agree that the elites on their government <-> big business carousel are the problem here. So how is this an indictment of the nonexistent free market and not our political system?

Originally Posted by Lune

Premise 2: The free market has no mechanism to prevent wealth from becoming concentrated in the hands of the most successful individuals or organizations.

This is just wrong, for two reasons. First, capital needs land and labor to be effective. Warren Buffet's 50 billion can't grow unless he hires other people to run the trains, design the new products, and so on. Second, capitalism involves wealth creation. This isn't the Feudal era where land was the only resource and to get rich you either had to steal it or inherit it. When you found a successful company, you make money, possibly a lot of money, and there is nothing the established elite can do to stop you. And new companies often involve a lot of creative destruction (think Kodak, Blackberry, etc).

I remember being taught in school about how the New Deal lifted us out of the depression. And yet, the Great Depression lasted for 7 years after the New Deal began. That is what I call failure. On the other hand, free market policies stopped the Great Depression of the 1920s in its tracks and lead to renewed prosperity.

Socialistic governments with 'strong labor' are in fact disasters all over the place: Southern Europe has youth unemployment of 40%. Venezuela is a disaster where you can't buy a pack of sardines and a taxi ride to the beach requires 100$ US at the current exchange rate. Denmark is in the midst of a massive housing bubble (Copenhagen housing prices have increased 50% over the past 3 years due to NIRP). Germany is about to take on 1 million Syrian immigrants. I'm sure that will work out well for them.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But how many people actually know what it takes to get there... what have we really done as a nation to make this sort of thing a reality for most people?

IMHO the vast majority of our problems are due to

• the various central banks of the world totally distorting the price signals of the market, leading to capital misallocation (oil wells in North Dakota, houses in SF, etc)
• multiculturalism and it's derogation of work and productivity as privilege
• outrageous divorce and child support laws that are leading us down the road to Idiocracy

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we can both agree that the elites on their government <-> big business carousel are the problem here. So how is this an indictment of the nonexistent free market and not our political system?

Because we're standing at a crossroads. Some people believe the way to get out of this mess is a shift toward more free market policies, and others believe it is by a shift toward more socialist policies. And my argument is that the free market has no mechanism for redistribution.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is just wrong, for two reasons. First, capital needs land and labor to be effective. Warren Buffet's 50 billion can't grow unless he hires other people to run the trains, design the new products, and so on. Second, capitalism involves wealth creation. This isn't the Feudal era where land was the only resource and to get rich you either had to steal it or inherit it. When you found a successful company, you make money, possibly a lot of money, and there is nothing the established elite can do to stop you. And new companies often involve a lot of creative destruction (think Kodak, Blackberry, etc).

In no way does this refute premise #2. It doesn't matter how many people Warren Buffett hires when the wider labor market and culture dictates that Warren profits disproportionately more from their labor than they do. For every enterprise run by Warren, both his share of newly generated wealth and aggregate existing wealth increases faster than the people he hires.

When Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook, the first people to profit were a small cabal of founders and his investors. A small group of people were elevated into the elite, the investors reaped tremendous profits, and nothing of value happened for the middle class except maybe a slight bump in their stock portfolios.

What I'm getting at is this: If you have $10,000,000, it is far easier to make another $100,000 than if you have $10,000. Yes, in the process of making another $100,000, economic growth will ensue, jobs will be created, etc etc. So what? Economic growth isn't our issue, economic opportunity is. Rich people are doing fine, poor people aren't. How can the free market address that?

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Socialistic governments with 'strong labor' are in fact disasters all over the place: Southern Europe has youth unemployment of 40%. Venezuela is a disaster where you can't buy a pack of sardines and a taxi ride to the beach requires 100$ US at the current exchange rate. Denmark is in the midst of a massive housing bubble (Copenhagen housing prices have increased 50% over the past 3 years due to NIRP). Germany is about to take on 1 million Syrian immigrants. I'm sure that will work out well for them.

Aside from examples of Southern Europe and South America where the culture and economy can't support a socialist system, all I see is you citing imperfections. So what if Denmark has a housing bubble? So did we. And at the end of the day, Danes will still live in a society where if you work a full time job you are almost guaranteed to not drown in squalor. German refugees are an issue with their political policies, not their economic state. It's not really related to a discussion on the merits of free market vs. socialism when you have German politicians selling out their own country to immigrants and throwing away a beautiful system. That's a problem with multiculturalism, not socialism.

I want you to know we don't disagree as much as you seem to think we do. It's not like I believe the free market is totally evil or that it's even a dichotomy between pure free market vs. pure socialism. Like most issues, the ideal position is a middle ground. What I'm really arguing here is that the middle and lower classes need to be subsidized, not taxed (mainly in response to Orruar and Irunedyourday's discussion), and I think we both agree that's accomplished first and foremost by liberating our political system.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Socialistic governments with 'strong labor' are in fact disasters all over the place: Southern Europe has youth unemployment of 40%. Venezuela is a disaster where you can't buy a pack of sardines and a taxi ride to the beach requires 100$ US at the current exchange rate. Denmark is in the midst of a massive housing bubble (Copenhagen housing prices have increased 50% over the past 3 years due to NIRP). Germany is about to take on 1 million Syrian immigrants. I'm sure that will work out well for them.

Yea bout you are just comparing countries that have corrupt governments. If you look at nations that have good governments the socialist movements there flourish, the economy booms and the people are happy.

its like looking at a homeless person, who also happens to disagree with you, and then saying that he's homeless because he disagree's with you.

As far as Denmark, the results of that bubble will yet to be seen. If you think that Denmark is unique form all problems because its got the 3rd happiest people on earth (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ntries-of-2015) you're making a slight exaggeration. Denmark isn't perfect, but its a perfect example of what socialism can do for the overall society.

As far as Germany, whether they were socialists capitalists or pretty much anything but fascists, the influx of immigrants from the crisis in Syria would still happen. So again, you cant use that as an example about why socialism is bad

In fact, you haven't shared one example of socialism being the central cause of any one problem (and Im not talking about communism). However you have shared many reasons why a free market driven political system has been the central cause of problems here in the USA.

So its pretty clear that one of these systems is a disaster, while the other one isn't.

Hell we've given 30+ years to republicans, Id say its time that we admit that conservative policies just don't make a country better off than progressive ones. There is just too much ideology in conservative policies.

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Side note, nothing that bernie sanders will do, unless you are making over 250k a year will affect you besides providing you with a better quality of life.

I was happily wasting time while waiting for a boat ride and I ran across your comment. Just exactly how is Bernie Sanders going to provide anyone (other than himself should he win the presidency) "with a better quality of life?" Please be specific, give concrete examples.

As a matter of full disclosure, I don't think ANY president can provide a "better quality of life." Such a statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. Mother Theresa thought she had a great quality of life while Bill Gates may think she lived in squalor.

Keep in mind that Obama promised "Hope and Change" and all I have ever seen out of that is more "change" going to the IRS and a health care system with increasingly high costs.

I look forward to the specifics you can provide to support your claim about Sanders.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aside from examples of Southern Europe and South America where the culture and economy can't support a socialist system

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

Yea bout you are just comparing countries that have corrupt governments. If you look at nations that have good governments the socialist movements there flourish, the economy booms and the people are happy.

I read this and I just don't know what to say. Are you guys really incapable of seeing the gaping logical flaws here? "Socialism is good! Capitalism is bad! Oh, you tried socialism and it didn't work? Well Socialism is Good, therefore YOU are the problem." Logically, Northern Europeans are happy in spite of their Socialist governments, not because of them. Meanwhile, free market economies work anywhere: Chile in South America, Hong Kong and Singapore in Asia, Switzerland in Europe, etc.

[ronasch]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what's a special interest group. i always hear about how bad they are but never more than that. who should we eat?

Let's start with the enviro nazi's the Sierra Club. Who have given Demoncrats millions of dollars in campaign contributions to promote Global Scamming, I mean warming

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was happily wasting time while waiting for a boat ride and I ran across your comment. Just exactly how is Bernie Sanders going to provide anyone (other than himself should he win the presidency) "with a better quality of life?" Please be specific, give concrete examples.

As a matter of full disclosure, I don't think ANY president can provide a "better quality of life." Such a statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. Mother Theresa thought she had a great quality of life while Bill Gates may think she lived in squalor.

Keep in mind that Obama promised "Hope and Change" and all I have ever seen out of that is more "change" going to the IRS and a health care system with increasingly high costs.

I look forward to the specifics you can provide to support your claim about Sanders.

Sure, first of all hope and change was a movement, that I might add we did not elect into office. Obama inspired the movement. If anyone that was a part of that movement, thought that electing Obama meant: with a snap of our fingers, yay we won hope and change! Yay new everything out of nowhere! huzzuh! Now its done we can go back to eating Doritos and not giving a crap about anything! well then they were wrong. And if anyone thought that was the point of the movement? they are wrong too. Hope and change is something we have to keep fighting for, and hopefully, we will keep fighting for. You don't elect ideals into the white house. If anyone on either side thought thats what hope and change meant, then they were just flat out wrong.

Now for quality of life. With a better economy, more jobs, healthcare, great working conditions, time off for family leave, time off for vacation, higher wages, and policies that will push for mandates for all of this? that is how Bernie Sanders, focusing all of his term on fixing our broken economy, can make for a better quality of life for the people that live here in the USA.

There is A LOT of influence that the president and his office can do to affect, and DOES affect your quality of life. It is the central issue that drives the governments of most developed nations.. not the nation that spends more on military than the next 14 countries combined mind you, but MOST countries.

and absolutly yes, quality of life is subjective... but there are ways you can objectively measure it: http://theweek.com/articles/463919/h...trys-happiness

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not like I believe the free market is totally evil or that it's even a dichotomy between pure free market vs. pure socialism. Like most issues, the ideal position is a middle ground. What I'm really arguing here is that the middle and lower classes need to be subsidized, not taxed (mainly in response to Orruar and Irunedyourday's discussion), and I think we both agree that's accomplished first and foremost by liberating our political system.

The question is what methods do you want government to use to "subsidize" the lower classes? You say that we need to "first and foremost" liberate our political system, but what does that mean? Bloody revolution? Coupe d'etat? A strong centralized government forcing wealth redistribution?