Thank you for the compliment. As for the rest, I know I'm right, but I do encourage others to disagree occasionally, provided it doesn't become a habit and interrupt the discourse. :lol:
Then Edelman is wrong and USA citizens can actually buy more things with their salaries than 15 years ago China for the past 30 years? That's easy. How about USA for the past 15 years (which was what we were talking about)? It's becoming clear that you're the one telling lies...and they are exposed by your own sources. I need to do nothing but read your sources to realize how wrong you are. There we go again. I will quote myself "The price of food, utilities, etc has not dropped". That's what I said. Tell me if you have difficulties in understanding english. As far as I know, you can't eat washing machines or driers or cars. Food is becoming more and more expensive. And that's what I first think of when we talk about consumer goods. Not cars, which we don't buy every day. Otherwise, everything can be seen as a consumer good. The link you posted comprises many products, but they are not representative of what the average person consumes in a month. No, I want you to stop lying. The graphic you showed does not talk about the last 15 years. Actually, it does not talk about ANY of thoses years, not a single one. It talks about the 80 years before that. 80 years! Not 15. Before the period we were talking about! Not during. Do a favour to yourself and stop showing pictures and links that only prove you're wrong. From your link: "The last 40 years have seen an increase in population coinciding with a decrease in the numbers of people living in extreme poverty.". I talk about the differences between rich and poor. You dodge to extreme poverty. Try harder.
Are all men created equal when one is born in a rich family and another in a poor one? When one wastes whopping amounts of money on stupid things in a long spoiled childhood and yet somehow gets to buy stocks at the age of 14, a brand new Lamborghini at the age of 18 and a large property at the age of 20, while the other is provident since childhood, works hard to buy a 2nd hand Toyota and has no alternative but to pay a rent (which sucks half of his salary) in order to live in a modest house? When one hires private teachers to stick knowledge onto his lazy brain, manages to complete an university degree and his first job is as administrator of one of his father's corporations, while the other studies hard by himself, doesn't have the money to go to college and gets a low-paying job? When one has everything by the taking while the other struggles to get something out of nothing? Like you, I don't believe in income equality. But I trully believe in the axiom: "all men should be born equal". Then, what every individual does with his own life is his own issue. So, either equality is not a core value of Classical Liberalism and "all men are created equal" means little to that doctrine, or I'm a Classical Liberalist and you aren't.
Raising taxes and ending wars should generate more than enough money to pay for everything he's promising.
As I said "True liberal equality is not income equality. True equality means that people are equal in authority."
A couple more points: 1. The CEO of Rio would have a different position to you. He says: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-quarter-iron-ore-output-up-13-as-prices-soar Productivity improvement, efficient management of cash to ensure short-term obligations are met and enhancing the company's capacity to increase its earnings by maximising free cash flow. If it was as easy as just selling more stuff we'd never need entrepreneurs. 2. Utilities have dropped, the table I linked to clearly shows that. Food has had an inconsistent path if you look at short term data sets, but historically it echoes other consumer goods: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/07/01/global-food-prices-drop-to-a-five-year-low It's not consistent though, some years there have been increases: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/food-price-watch-may-2014 Don't know how accurate this is but it reflects the declining price of other consumer goods, eg washing machines, clothes driers and energy even though you can't eat electricity: [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_screen_shot_2016-04-20_at_74631_am.png][/imgz] http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cave...cal-perspective-on-food-prices/#axzz46JMv2apq So, until you can find data that refutes what I've shown then here's a quote which you'd be familiar with: PS: what about that "velocity of money" thing then from the OP? Unlike Edelman, I still can't feel the Bern. :lol:
It does sound like such a simple "fix" for the voting public to buy into, but it is incredibly naive. Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie. He means to do good and he seems to have more integrity than most politicians going around. He can correctly identify some of the things going wrong (crony-ism) and has been on the right side of many (losing) policy decisions in the past (such as anti-war) but his socialist solution is not going to work. You cannot fix the vast economic problems of the welfare state....by making the welfare state bigger. The fact some are trying to argue that Bernie is the best candidate for the economy is a bad joke. He may be good for a lot of things, but sound and responsible economic policy is NOT one of them. There may be some people in the FIRE industries (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) that might like him because more money printing means more easy money and more inflated asset prices, but you have to see some of their support for what it is - self interest.
No. You're aren't a Classical Liberal at this stage because you don't believe that people have the natural right of self-ownership and are free to pursue their peaceful projects and live their lives in ways they see fit. The only true equality is equality in authority. All else is just empty justifications to nanny people, to rule over people, to rob them of their freedoms, their possessions or their very lives to achieve an unnatural state of human affairs. Your "equality" is achieved by violence and threats of violence by some granted privileges against others who aren't deemed "worthy". Hardly anyone in North Korea has equal authority in society but almost everyone is equally miserable and fearful. All people are born equal in rights and this equality cannot be abrogated by any man-made law. Rights are inalienable and imprescriptible. What this means for the moral enormities of things like conscription, war and slavery should be obvious, as should be the moral issues of freedom of religion, sexuality, association, movement, politics and speech along with the issues of euthanasia, right to fair trial, duty of care, guardianship, property rights, privacy, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Other major societal issues like abortion, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, weapons, intellectual property, inheritance laws and regulations may be dependent on circumstances or social norms but the Classical Liberal equality in authority gives many unambiguous directions on these matters. To whine about "inequality of outcomes" and discard people's fundamental rights to forcibly "correct" a given state of affairs is to also discard any rational reasoning or response to many, many other issues that arise in social groups. It's to throw away your moral compass and stumble around the forest hoping to end up somewhere nice but more often walking into a worse place than where you started.
Bernie's team has costed out the revenue necessary to implement his programs, basing some of it upon modelling done by venerable academics. The problem that could arise is that the revenue from hiking taxes, say a financial transactions tax may fall well short of the anticipated amount, despite the modellers taking into account the possibility of up to a 50% decline in business activity as companies attempt to avoid the taxes, the modelling (which is just a market prediction) could end up being plain wrong - MRRT anyone? :/
Yes. I live in Oklahoma. Edit: Bernie wil not be an option for president. He will be beaten by Clinton in the primaries and thus not even an option. I tend to wait until the official nominations have been made before I look at any policies they have. At this stage in the game it is a giant waste of time to watch. Just my opinion.
Why do you say he has a different position? I'm talking about the vast majority of companies. He's talking about his own company. I think were just talking about different things, not really disagreeing with each other. I never said production wasn't a relevant challenge and that sales were all that mattered. I just said sales have been a bigger challenge for american companies. And there's a reason for that: technology and means of production are evolving while consumer's purchasing power is going the opposite way. You're constantly misunderstanding my statements. Otherwise, you can't really disagree with / refute them. Of course we need entrepreneurs, and there are plenty (yet, the Economy is not going stronger). But then I can raise another question. Where's the bottleneck of the USA Economy: new companies being created or existing businesses getting larger? We all know the answer. It's not that wen don't have new ideas and new ventures being tested in the market. The problem is that a shrinking middle class limits companies' growth.
You're assuming the problems are in the welfare state. I'd say the problems are in the trillions spent in wars, in the insane capitalism that dominates Wall Street and in the shrinking percentage of taxes that rich people and corporations have been paying. If Bernie Sanders is elected president and fixes these problems, I couldn't care less about the inefficiencies of the welfare system. And yet he's aiming at that too when he says he will reform the healthcare system to something more similar to the european system (which is less expensive and more comprehensive). He's policies aim to reverse the ones that created 2 recent financial crisis and made the rich and big corporations to pay less taxes than the middle class and small businesses. If this is a bad joke, maybe the policies followed so far are a good joke... As far as I know, he doesn't promise any money printing.
Please see the bold and tell me if you still have doubts. Actually I do. The privilege of being born equal?...against others who aren't deemed worthy of being born equal? What you think about me is not only wrong but also a paradox. But now your words touched me. I almost feel sorry for that man I talked about previously if he can't buy a brand new Lamborghini with money he didn't earned. Oh, that's terrible. And if he has to study as hard as the poor man in order to go to college. That's unbearable. And if he can't go to college because he couldn't be as intelligent and hard working as the poor man, who filled the vacancy on a top-quality tuition-free college that was previously destined to go only to people that got the (unearned) money to pay for everything. That is so unjust. And it must harm the Economy so much, once gratuates will be the ones that proved to be the most capable, and not the ones with rich parents. I can't imagine an Economy as dysfunctional as that.
There is indeed. Consider "operational efficiency" when I say "production". My points still stand and so far you couldn't disagree with / refute them.
As you were at great pains to point out in post #3, they weren't your words. I already have refuted them in post #9, you just don't like the answer. Productivity is the key to improving the economy - not velocity of money. If velocity of money is any indicator of a functioning economy (which I don't think it is) all it does is indicate how often a set amount of money gets turned over. It's not how often money gets spent that increases wealth, but how value is added. Bernie Sanders' policies do not encourage productivity therefore he is not the best candidate for the economy. Trump is a better candidate, however he too is a protectionist, his only benefit over Sanders is that he (or so he says) will reduce government spending and sack some of the departments eg education.
