PDA

View Full Version : Would You Vote for Me?


Trumpetplayer
January 1st, 2017, 11:21 AM
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm going to say first off that I am a Democrat, but, as a Southerner (I heed from Tennessee), I am more conservative in my views. I will list 10 issues and my stances on them. If you're happy with those 10, say yes and your reason(s) or no and your reason(s). If you have any other issues (which is greatly appreciated), I'd be really happy to answer them, just quote this and I'll answer you.

Abortion- I believe Abortion is a terrible thing, I believe that if you are a teenager, you shouldn't have been unprotected anyway. However, there are many cases of rape and incest, especially in the Southeastern US, it's a stereotype yes, and one were not too proud of. However, it is my belief that the Government should stay out of a woman's vagina. Therefore, I support the women's choice. If you say it is a matter of sin and principle? Then let God tend to it.

The Bible and Religion in Politics- I believe that you can not fully represent the population without keeping Religion out of politics. Believe me, if you are from the South, you will be raised around a religious group of people, and you yourselves would most likely be religious, however, I would keep an unbiased view of the population and represent all. Morals are the person, not the Religion. After all, even Dahmer was religious.

Debt & Economy- I believe in a regulated free- market. I believe in breaking up larger corporations into smaller subsidiaries so the employees and company may give back to a smaller community, rather than a whole region or nation. I believe in a higher inflation. Inflation is a bad word, but so is Debt. Inflation lowers Debt, Debt lowers inflation. It is a double edged sword and there's nothing we can do about it. As we face a disturbing time in our Financial woes, we may see a light, only a glimmer of hope at the end of an increasingly narrow tunnel.

Immigration- This was, and still is, a major issue in US politics. America is the free world, and my family came in 1710 to find the new world. We did not go through Ellis Island, we didn't have passports. We got on a boat on the Coast of Yorkshire and sailed to the Colonies of America. Let these people, these immigrants, who look for a better life like most Americans, live in this better world.

Infrastructure- In the Southern United States, we have been failed by our Transportation Dept. We have roads that are gravel because the asphalt has worn down. Bridges crumbling and being abandoned, leaving families with an extra drive to the store. I believe in massive Infrastructure projects and the return of the Civilian Conservation Corp for major work projects and to get our citizens working again.

Military- America is the police of the world. This must stop. Terrorism is a futile fight as Radical Islamists continue to fight for their beliefs to rule the world, as the Christians did in the Crusades. Killing innocent men, women, and children must stop. The blood is on our hands. We are just as murderous as the Islamists, but we are the heros due to our point of view.

Nationalism- Everyone is entitled to be proud of their country. However, like a coin, everyone is entitled to be ashamed of their country.

Racism- Here we go. As a southerner, I come from a racist family. However, this was how they were raised. As the older generation dies, the younger, more understanding generation will let racism die, right? Sadly this is not the case. It's been a rough time in the South, the Ku Klux Klan has risen again. The only way we can fight this? Education. Racism is a terrible thing, but, as I've said before, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Social Security- One day, we'll be old. We may need a little back up cash. In the Social Security fund currently, there is an IOU. I believe we should all replinish the fund by setting a side a small amount, even a dollar per pay check, and look towards the future.

Taxes- Under President-elect Trump's plan, the Upper class will enjoy a tax cut of 6.3%, the middle class will save 3% and the lower class will suffer through a 2% INCREASE. This is not the way to go. The rich have enjoyed a wonderful prosperity- It is time for them to give back to their country. I propose a 10- 20- 45 plan. 10 for the poor, 20 for the middle class and 45 for the upper.

Please, as I said, if you have any issues you'd like my stance on, please quote this and comment your question. Thank you in advance.

Mars
January 1st, 2017, 11:58 AM
Nah, probably not.

Vlerchan
January 1st, 2017, 12:19 PM
[...] so the employees and company may give back to a smaller community, rather than a whole region or nation.
I would appreciate if you could explain what you would consider the specific benefits of such to be.

I would also appreciate if you could explain why you would prefer to break up businesses rather than make it easier for individuals to create them.

Debt lowers inflation.
Would you mind describing the mechanism that underpins this, thank you.

[...] massive Infrastructure projects [...]
How do you intend to fund this?

[...] get our citizens working again.
It is worth noting that when the CCC program existed it was the case that unemployment was above the natural rate; this was a consequence of deficiencies in aggregate demand. When this is not the case - and unemployment current stands at the natural rate - this program is likely to only exacerbate inflationary pressures, such as around wages and prices, and this in turn undermines the economies competitiveness; such is net-negative across the long-run, as people demand less of the noncompetitive goods (inducing an increase in the natural rate).

If some people are unable to find jobs, is it not also better to offer them to time and resources to develop the skills required to operate in a modern economy?

It is time for them to give back to their country.
What do you feel the impact of high taxation on the upper-middle class will be on investment and job creation?

Trumpetplayer
January 1st, 2017, 12:40 PM
I would appreciate if you could explain what you would consider the specific benefits of such to be.

I would also appreciate if you could explain why you would prefer to break up businesses rather than make it easier for individuals to create them.


Would you mind describing the mechanism that underpins this, thank you.


How do you intend to fund this?


It is worth noting that when the CCC program existed it was the case that unemployment was above the natural rate; this was a consequence of deficiencies in aggregate demand. When this is not the case - and unemployment current stands at the natural rate - this program is likely to only exacerbate inflationary (wage, price) pressures and this in turn undermines the economies competitiveness; such is net-negative across the long-run.


What do you feel the impact of high taxation on the upper-middle class will be on investment and job creation?

For instance, in my area, Chick-fil-A has given back to our community greatly. Donating to local schools and charities, promoting activities in the local community through service and even donating food to the local homeless shelter.

I'm sure you are familiar with employee owned businesses. I am a supporter of that for of business. Also, I'm sure you've heard of the Small Business Administration. I'm from a family of Small business owners. We've been fairly successful and have grown, however, in the end, my grandfather retired and broke apart the company. That's not the best analogy. Allow me to put it this way. A cell grows and grows. It's a successful cell. However, after it gets to a certain size, the cell breaks apart the maintain a healthy size. It should be easier to open a small business 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years. Due to a more convenient Supermarket down the street for a local market for instance.

Actually, thank you for catching that for me. It's a typo. A lower debt means a lower inflation in the end.

If you may read my tax program, that's how I intend to fund this. It may seem a little while of the mark. During the 1930s, for the upper class, there was a 90% tax bracket. I do not believe in our days we could feasibly pull that off.

The natural rate of unemployment has been met for the United States as an average. But if you take a look at Shamokin, Pennsylvania and Elkhorn City, Kentucky or Erwin, Tennessee and Northwestern North Carolina as a whole, they have no jobs. This would be where the rates are high... which happens to be the same place that their infrastructure is failing.

45% is a very manageable amount, considering the current tax rate 39.3%. I believe there will be no effect. A corporation pays it's board, the board sets pay for the employees. A corporation has its own amount of money, not the million and billionaires in the chairs of the board.

Vlerchan
January 1st, 2017, 02:08 PM
Chick-fil-A has given back to our community greatly. Donating to local schools and charities, promoting activities in the local community through service and even donating food to the local homeless shelter.
Fidelity Investments - a mutual fund - has also donated about 25bn, across roughly 200,000 charities, in the last 20 or so years. Though the example is as clear in the firm you chose as an example. The point worth taking seems to be that there isn't a relationship between a firm being small and local and it giving back to the community.

We've been fairly successful and have grown, however, in the end, my grandfather retired and broke apart the company.
To use the example of Fidelity again, the grandfather passed it down to the son and it underwent rapid growth; the son, in turn, passed it down to his daughter, and she in turn has grown the firm. Today it manages about 2.1 tn (trillion) in assets and whilst its profitability figures aren't released, one can presume they are mindbogglingly large.

In short, I am failing to see why your cell analogy should hold at all. There is no reason that it is beneficial for firms to break up after a period of sustained expansion; the experience of successful firms tells us that it isn't optimal - and you haven't presented an argument as to why it is beneficial for the communities these firms locate themselves in.

... 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years. Due to a more convenient Supermarket down the street for a local market for instance.
Sure. And that's fine.

This would be where the rates are high...
It's implied - where the national rate is met but there is high unemployment is one area - that there is an undersupply of labour (or very low unemployment) in other areas (like Bismark N.D.).

Where such disparities persist it is further implied that some subset of people would prefer to live unemployed in a place like Elkhorn rather than move to Bismark where they might find gainful employment. Given this, why do you feel the government should subsidize people's desire to live in a certain area (which is the effect here). Furthermore, the intervention you suggest will create an incentive for more people to remain in a place like Elkhorn rather than move to Bismark; as, it becomes the case, that they expect to be given jobs regardless of their decisions. This will induce what is called search-frictions: Bismark has a more difficult time finding employees and this negatively affects their long-run potential production; which, in turn, undermines the economy's national performance.

Or: hindrances to perfect geographical mobility actually exist. There are reasons that people aren't moving Elkhorn to Bismark that go beyond them preferring to be unemployed in Elkhorn over being employed in Bismark. In such a case it would seem to me to be a lot more efficient to intervene to eliminate the hindrances rather than just give everyone who remains in Elkhorn jobs - which also creates that incentive effect discussed above; because, irrespective of whether or not some people have a difficult time moving from Elkhorn to Bismark, guaranteeing jobs for all those who remain in Elkhorn will induce more people to remain.

... infrastructure is failing
Correlation and causation and all that.

I believe there will be no effect
OK. Well, you are almost certainly wrong here. Under conventional Solowellian presumptions, interventions that reduce the level of capital investment* result in diminished long-run growth.

---

* Richer people invest and/or save a larger portion of their income than the poorer people than their income tends to be redistributed towards. Recall further that in the national accounts, savings = investments (their correlation is also about 0.98).

A corporation pays it's board, the board sets pay for the employees. A corporation has its own amount of money, not the million and billionaires in the chairs of the board.
I am not sure what the point being made here is. Would you mind expanding? Thank you.

Trumpetplayer
January 1st, 2017, 02:33 PM
Fidelity Investments - a mutual fund - has also donated about 25bn, across roughly 200,000 charities, in the last 20 or so years. Though the example is as clear in the firm you chose as an example. The point worth taking seems to be that there isn't a relationship between a firm being small and local and it giving back to the community.


To use the example of Fidelity again, the grandfather passed it down to the son and it underwent rapid growth; the son, in turn, passed it down to his daughter, and she in turn has grown the firm. Today it manages about 2.1 tn (trillion) in assets and whilst its profitability figures aren't released, one can presume they are mindbogglingly large.

In short, I am failing to see why your cell analogy should hold at all. There is no reason that it is beneficial for firms to break up after a period of sustained expansion; the experience of successful firms tells us that it isn't optimal - and you haven't presented an argument as to why it is beneficial for the communities these firms locate themselves in.


Sure. And that's fine.


It's implied - where the national rate is met but there is high unemployment is one area - that there is an undersupply of labour (or very low unemployment) in other areas (like Bismark N.D.).

Where such disparities persist it is further implied that some subset of people would prefer to live unemployed in a place like Elkhorn rather than move to Bismark where they might find gainful employment. Given this, why do you feel the government should subsidize people's desire to live in a certain area (which is the effect here). Furthermore, the intervention you suggest will create an incentive for more people to remain in a place like Elkhorn rather than move to Bismark; as, it becomes the case, that they expect to be given jobs regardless of their decisions. This will induce what is called search-frictions: Bismark has a more difficult time finding employees and this negatively affects their long-run potential production; which, in turn, undermines the economy's national performance.

Or: hindrances to perfect geographical mobility actually exist. There are reasons that people aren't moving Elkhorn to Bismark that go beyond them preferring to be unemployed in Elkhorn over being employed in Bismark. In such a case it would seem to me to be a lot more efficient to intervene to eliminate the hindrances rather than just give everyone who remains in Elkhorn jobs - which also creates that incentive effect discussed above.


Correlation and causation and all that.


OK. Well, you are almost certainly wrong here. Under conventional Solowellian presumptions, interventions that reduce the level of capital investment* result in diminished long-run growth.

---

* Richer people invest and/or save a larger portion of their income than the poorer people than their income tends to be redistributed towards. Recall further that in the national accounts, savings = investments (their correlation is also about 0.98).


I am not sure what the point being made here is. Would you mind expanding? Thank you.

Indeed there isn't, I know of many large corporations that give back to the community. However, I wish to combat the care for profit more than employees. Giving a hard working single mother minimum wage in a town with no other jobs is not ethical. Well Fidelity, I'm not sure how expansive the operation is, but giving it's profit margins, it's very large, is a family business. I'm not wanting to destroy family business. Let me ask you, does Fidelity have a Board?

Have you ever seen the Appalachian towns? The ones that aren't tourist traps? These people barely have money for shoes, let alone to finance a new house. These are people with no dental or health insurance, no computer access, no telephone. They barely have electricity, and in some cases not even that. It would be more expensive, in my view, to relocate them than to bring jobs.

Presumptions? That's not certainty. The fact is, the upper class has not been providing enough. I'm not wanting to rob the rich to give to the poor. I am not, furthermore, a communist nor a socialist. I've listened, or read, your points and I accept and agree to a few of them. You're an intelligent person and I enjoy listening to your points, but let me ask you. Where are you from?

Vlerchan
January 1st, 2017, 03:14 PM
Giving a hard working single mother minimum wage in a town with no other jobs is not ethical.
Discarding the fact that you have failed to argue the case for this, you have yet to explain why smaller companies are in a better position to give her more than the minimum wage than larger companies.

It's also worth noting with employee-owned companies that there is an incentive for these to restrict further employment unless the next person employed produces at a level greater or equal to the average product - employer-owned firms add employees up until the point where the next person employed produces at a level greater or equal to the marginal product. This will undoubtedly induce greater levels of unemployment that people, such as our hard-working single mother, will be at disproportionate risk of falling prey of.

I'm not wanting to destroy family business.
It's majority stakeholder is a family but it is still a limited corporation (privately-held) so:

Let me ask you, does Fidelity have a Board?
Yes.

---

Goldman Sachs has also donated 1 billion since Goldman Sachs Gives was founded. I am quite sure that all of the big international banks have their own corporate social responsibility arms that have donated billions to charities around the world.

It would be more expensive, in my view, to relocate them than to bring jobs.
I never said the government should relocate them. I said that if they haven't relocated themselves then either 1. they prefer to live unemployed in that region than employed in another and we shouldn't subsidize that choice - or 2. there is some impediment that is stopping them from moving themselves and the government should intervene to eliminate that. The reason is that 1. it is the most welfare-efficient and 2. it doesn't increase incentive effects that makes things worse for these people in the long-run.

Little evidence that being poor impedes geographical mobility. Take the hundreds of millions of people in developing countries that have migrated towards urban zones since the 1980s. To put this in human terms, since you seem to prefer that. My mothers side of the family were Appalachian-level poor: imagine dropping-out-of-school-at-15-because-your-parents-can't-afford-to-feed-you poor, and most of them, unable to find jobs in 80s Ireland, where unemployment was 20%, emigrated to England; poverty wasn't a restriction, it was an impetus.

In your cost-benefit analysis, you also aren't taking in the long-run costs. Giving people jobs, with wages at levels in and around welfare levels, doesn't help create jobs in the future; dependence begets future dependence, and so on.

Presumptions? That's not certainty.
It's pretty much as close to a certainty in macroeconomic reasoning as you get. For some background, the Solow model, is the go-to for professional growth economists.

The fact is, the upper class has not been providing enough. I'm not wanting to rob the rich to give to the poor. I am not, furthermore, a communist nor a socialist.
I wouldn't care if you were. I used to hold positions quite similar to yours; but, eventually, I came around to the belief that these sort of solutions leave the greater problems unvisited: developing long-run potential is the greatest means of eradicating impoverishment, as unsatisfying as it might be in the present.

Where are you from?
East Ireland.

I have also liked reading your posts too and can agree with all the social policy you have outlined; I probably would have voted for you ahead of Trump or Clinton.

NewLeafsFan
January 2nd, 2017, 02:21 AM
You and I think very similarly on most issues. You are just a little bit further left on the political spectrum than I am. I consider myself to be center-left.

Collinsworthington
January 4th, 2017, 03:41 AM
I'm a Socialist so your hella far to the right for my taste. But, i'd have voted for you in this last election, but don't feel to special because i would have taken Obama again. Your economic views are decent, but as a pro-choice atheist, we definitely disagree on many social issues.

Trumpetplayer
January 4th, 2017, 04:59 PM
I'm a Socialist so your hella far to the right for my taste. But, i'd have voted for you in this last election, but don't feel to special because i would have taken Obama again. Your economic views are decent, but as a pro-choice atheist, we definitely disagree on many social issues.

I considered myself a socialist for many years until I moved towards the center for reasons which are quite clear. Americans still have a fear of Communism and Socialism. In the South, there are many closed minded folks of the older generation. I believe in a say for everybody, especially those I disagree with. As for the atheist part, I am an agnostic. A lot of people want religion in government. I said you would be biased with your own religion. I am prochoice as I stated in the Abortion Section.

Porpoise101
January 4th, 2017, 05:17 PM
Better than Trump.

What is your foreign policy? This is important because I don't want to get drafted or nuked.