|
No you see if a job creator's investment portfolio drops 10% he's going to have to make up that lost worth somehow because that 3rd vacation home doesn't pay for itself!
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
How many times have the banks killed the economy in the past hundred years? Like, ten? And at least half of those were through deliberate malfeasance rather than simple incompetence. And we're coming up on a new one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean i agree with you, so i don't really know why you're so angry about it. i only made a point to that one guy that opinions shift and we shouldn't be wedded to anti-bank stuff because it might not be relevant in 4 years, not that no one cares about anti-bank rhetoric ever or that it can't be a plank in an effective message. I think the important part of the banking rhetoric is the people who didn't vote for Clinton and cost us the election in the rust belt are the same people that have huge problems with wall steet and banks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
pragmatism is important opening negotiations with "hang all bankers" and accepting nothing less is not pragmatism opening negotiations with "hang all bankers" and allowing yourself to be talked down to "regulate Wall Street?" that's pragmatism art of the deal baby 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
democrats should run on a "hang every banker from the nearest streetpole" plank imho
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i agree - polls are not destiny and they only capture a small idea of the overall mood of the electorate. they are windows into public opinion. but the point is that, historically, people have not seen banks as demons. overwhelmingly they have seen them either positively or neutral. opinion can shift rapidly, and it will shift again. it would be a mistake to get sucked into talking about what you want people to care about rather than what they actually care about. On the superficial, secondary level we're talking here, people care about the things you get them to care about. They aren't passively drifting leaves in the wind. And they, generally speaking, want to care about something, but the details are less important. You aren't going to change people's primary motivations, most of the time, but most of their political opinions are only derived, not fundamental. So you find something, anything, that can make it personal and make those primary motivations work for you. No, people do not hate the banking industry. You know what they do hate? They hate the fact that they are losing their jobs, that they can't buy a home, that their home was foreclosed, that their bills get larger every month, that they are underwater on their mortgage. You don't campaign on "hating the banking industry", you campaign on all those personal primary motivations and offer them "hating the banking industry" as the path to a solution. It gives them someone to blame, other than themselves (which people like), and even more importantly you can give them hope - by blaming a big chunk of that on the banks, you gain the ability to cast all of those other problems as something you can FIX. And if you get elected, then every time you fall short you blame the other guy for holding you back, for not wanting those problems to be fixed (and try your hardest to make sure that if something fails to happen, that's actually the reason - not like with the ACA where it was very easy to blame the Democrats for the state it ended up in, especially since they all loving ran straight away from it the moment they could). Concerned Citizen posted:it probably did not help him overall, but might have helped with a certain segment of the electorate he needed to win the electoral college.  what. If it helped him with the segments of the electorate he needed to win the electoral college, then it did help him overall. So, just... what
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Just name the thread Democrats: The Centrist Powers and the Berntente already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Again, free trade is only an unmitigated good if you assume workers can freely relocate and retrain into new jobs. Since they can't, free trade economically harms broad segments of society while enriching others - generally city dwellers with better education and the already wealthy. Sometimes its worthwhile to protect inefficient industries and vulnerable workers from free trade with tariffs. Sure its inefficient and reduces the overall wealth of society, but since most of the wealth is accrued to the top 1% of country anyways, gently caress em. Also free trade undermines unions, which undermines worker's rights. Basically gently caress free trade at the expense of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:what the gently caress is your problem with lincoln chafee I will fight you that man was my governor for four years and he was an embarrassment then and is an embarrassment now. like sure, he's got that muppet thing going on and awww, look how affable he looks! but in truth he's a loving dingus and should not be captain of any ship. the man's been riding on the coattails of his father's good name all his life and should have just stuck to being a burnout hippy instead of just another grifter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:pragmatism is important I say it should be paired down to breakup the banks
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, Trump starting a trade war will. How will running against banks help then? man fulchrum you post some silly neoliberal bullshit on c-spam but this may be the most clueless thing that anyone has ever posted on this or any other subforum good loving lord "the banks aren't going to destroy the economy!" despite the banks being what destroyed the economy every other loving time it's happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
i'm not saying that the solution wrt bankers should be hanging them from streetpoles or anything but jesus christ let's not pretend like the finance sector isn't at least one of the forces most responsible for every economic meltdown we've had in the century and a half
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
i guess the idea of chafee works in a vacuum -- affable dopey dude with feel good nonsense messaging. unfortunately we live in the real world, and it is not a kind place
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Again, free trade is only an unmitigated good if you assume workers can freely relocate and retrain into new jobs. Since they can't, free trade economically harms broad segments of society while enriching others - generally city dwellers with better education and the already wealthy. Sometimes its worthwhile to protect inefficient industries and vulnerable workers from free trade with tariffs. Sure its inefficient and reduces the overall wealth of society, but since most of the wealth is accrued to the top 1% of country anyways, gently caress em. Instead of undermining productivity, why not just make sure the benefits get passed on to everyone instead of a few rich fuckers
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
You can't outright blame the rich and get very far because ultimately people want to be rich and by saying rich people are poo poo you're telling a bunch of people that their dream is to be a shithead. You can however blame banks because you're not specifically blaming a person and pretty much everyone can think of one lovely experience with a bank, even moreso with full frontal fuckery like Wells Fargo going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
^ agree on the power of messaging. But secretly, gently caress the richLemming posted:Instead of undermining productivity, why not just make sure the benefits get passed on to everyone instead of a few rich fuckers Well, Im all for Full Communism Now, but if we're being pragmatic not worshiping 'free trade' like a perfect solution to everything without concern for its fallout would be a good place to start. Also lol at undermining productivity. The American worker is one of the most productive on the planet already and improving every year, yet wages continue to stagnate. Its not our productivity thats the problem, its wage stagnation and the lack of worker power because free trade worshiping oligarchs can just move production elsewhere rather than pay more for labor. E: Someone post that productivity v wages chart if they have it Nix Panicus has issued a correction as of 21:10 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:
Again, my point is that by the time the banks get around to imploding their latest bubble, Trump's trade war will have already destroyed the economy. Hell, at this point with how badly he is pissing off India and China, either accidentally or on purpose and I don't know which is worse, there is a serious chance he blows up the economy before he is sworn in. Say what you will about the banks, they're unlikely to drive the global economy into a brick wall before Easter. When their time comes this time around, all they'll be doing is lighting the rubble on fire. That was my point - the banks are not going to gently caress the economy as quickly as Trump will. The banks won't help in this scenario, but they won't be the big devil, and you cannot make them the sole focus. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 21:11 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Instead of undermining productivity, why not just make sure the benefits get passed on to everyone instead of a few rich fuckers Seriously! I would have absolutely 0 problem with globalism if we were reaping the benefits of being the world's leading financial institution. Unfortunately our bizarre tax system allows (and encourages) people to build arbitrary amounts of wealth while letting our poorest people literally starve to death and die from disease in the streets. If we can't get a GMI and national healthcare then I'll take hard protectionism. It'll gently caress our country 20 years down the road but I don't give a poo poo, I didn't spawn and I don't care about the world my neighbor's kids are going to inherit if my shithead neighbor didn't care enough about it to vote for anyone but Trump
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
i wish fulchrum didn't get himself probated so often because i genuinely enjoy reading his terrible opinions they're like hilariously bad every single time
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
new kind of cat posted:i guess the idea of chafee works in a vacuum -- affable dopey dude with feel good nonsense messaging. Chaffee is the most respectable Rhode Island politician in that he is not a cartoon mobster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Again, free trade is only an unmitigated good if you assume workers can freely relocate and retrain into new jobs. Since they can't, free trade economically harms broad segments of society while enriching others - generally city dwellers with better education and the already wealthy. Sometimes its worthwhile to protect inefficient industries and vulnerable workers from free trade with tariffs. Sure its inefficient and reduces the overall wealth of society, but since most of the wealth is accrued to the top 1% of country anyways, gently caress em. With a robust wealth redistribution system, we could enjoy the benefits of free trade while also caring for the working class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:man fulchrum you post some silly neoliberal bullshit on c-spam but this may be the most clueless thing that anyone has ever posted on this or any other subforum Oh come on. You're telling me it's impossible for anything other than the big banks to royally gently caress the economy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Again, my point is that by the time the banks get around to imploding their latest bubble, Trump's trade war will have already destroyed the economy. Hell, at this point with how badly he is pissing off India and China, either accidentally or on purpose and I don't know which is worse, there is a serious chance he blows up the economy before he is sworn in. Say what you will about the banks, they're unlikely to drive the global economy into a brick wall before Easter. you can call it a bubble but what happened in 2007 was just short of a full economic collapse, lol. Tens of millions of people lost their jobs and homes. Who knows how many people died from poverty and loss of healthcare? I'm not going to argue that Trump is going to do anything but destroy our economy but lol, what exactly is your position here? You're not saying "they're the lesser of two evils!" you're saying "They're not evil" the reason china's economy didn't collapse when everybody else's did in the mid 2000s is because their government had an iron grip on their financial sector and the few people who did exploit the same loophole everyone else was exploited got loving executed for their trouble
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:^ agree on the power of messaging. But secretly, gently caress the rich The point is that increased productivity good and is what allows a higher standard of living so everyone doesn't have to be dirt farmers. We just have to stop accepting that it means all the benefits goes to the rich. They can't all just up and leave the country because they're only rich because at the end of the day people here in America are the ones buying stuff. They can't just up and leave, there's nowhere else to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I say it should be paired down to breakup the banks patience, child does the farmer kill the swine at its first birthday? no-- instead, he fills its trough with seed and the pig thinks, what a good friend i have in the farmer
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Again, my point is that by the time the banks get around to imploding their latest bubble, Trump's trade war will have already destroyed the economy. Hell, at this point with how badly he is pissing off India and China, either accidentally or on purpose and I don't know which is worse, there is a serious chance he blows up the economy before he is sworn in. Say what you will about the banks, they're unlikely to drive the global economy into a brick wall before Easter. gently caress India. gently caress China. They don't make anything we can't make here, and if prices double on consumer goods because we have to pay American workers to make poo poo, then maybe those workers will be able to afford to buy those consumer goods. And the banks are a known evil that wrecked the economy before and got off scot free and have no reason to not do it again. Do you work for a bank or something? There was one guy who had some real banker fellating attitudes back in the before times, but he openly admitted to being a banker so there was an honesty there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:You can't outright blame the rich and get very far because ultimately people want to be rich and by saying rich people are poo poo you're telling a bunch of people that their dream is to be a shithead. You can however blame banks because you're not specifically blaming a person and pretty much everyone can think of one lovely experience with a bank, even moreso with full frontal fuckery like Wells Fargo going on. Disagree, the majority of the country makes <50k a year and is old enough to know if they were going to get rich it would have happened, the delusional people who are certain they're going to be millionaires already vote Republican, and those who don't (and are swing voters/possible non-voters because of it) make up a pretty marginal amount of attainable voters. At least compared to people more concerned with low wages, affordable housing, affordable healthcare, criminal justice reform etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
lincoln chafee has entered trump power carrying a giant metric ruler
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh come on. You're telling me it's impossible for anything other than the big banks to royally gently caress the economy? Arguing about anything economic with China involved is a fool's errand. They're a financial black box and you can't take any sort of real analysis about their economy seriously. Broadly, they're an export economy with only one real place to send their goods to and that's America, so I don't think they'd be that inclined to force Trump's hand. As far as the world economy literally melting down, global finance is the lever we actually have access to, being that we can't directly prevent complex diplomatic crises devolving into war. The rub is that U.S. banks aren't the problem, or at least the problem we need to worry about. The Eurozone is getting by on hope right now, and a hard exit by Italy or France throws a giant loving wrench into a machine that isn't working all that well to begin with. That's where your next outgrowth of this crisis will come from, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Chaffee is the most respectable Rhode Island politician in that he is not a cartoon mobster. goddamn that is the unfortunate truth, isn't it? consider me owned
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean i agree with you, so i don't really know why you're so angry about it. i only made a point to that one guy that opinions shift and we shouldn't be wedded to anti-bank stuff because it might not be relevant in 4 years, not that no one cares about anti-bank rhetoric ever or that it can't be a plank in an effective message. I'm not angry. I'm trying to explain, and to make you understand. You can't say you agree with me and then follow it up with a sentence that makes it clear you don't actually understand what I'm trying to say. Hell it would be easier if we did actually "disagree", at least then I'd know we were actually communicating. Probably not relevant to anyone but you, but going more into that... Like, this isn't actually just a problem between me and you either - look at your post history in this thread, and a significant portion of your posts are you arguing against things no one ever actually said and where there is no actual disagreement over the fundamental issue. Someone says "Besides the LL act, none of those things help out the average working class American." and you respond with "if wall street reform wasn't meaningful, i would suspect wall street would not be desperately trying to repeal the reforms. i get that most of the reforms are largely invisible because federal agents didn't rush into goldman sachs and shoot everyone that did not submit to the cfpb" Someone says the DNC needs to be replaced, and you argue against them by saying "reid and pelosi have done a good job" and getting mad that they want pelosi removed (even though they don't) Someone thinks a particular piece of coverage of Ellison was bad, you claim "there's a trend on this very forum to claim a covert corporate/establishment agenda every loving time a news source says something mean about a friend of bernie" (even while supporting Ellison) This "agreeing while arguing" seems common for you. You "agree" with people but then decide to argue against them, either by missing the point completely or mischaracterizing their arguments or assigning them to some sort of "group" that you can attack instead. Sometimes all three. Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing and that's why we clash so much, I dunno. Proud Christian Mom posted:You can't outright blame the rich and get very far because ultimately people want to be rich and by saying rich people are poo poo you're telling a bunch of people that their dream is to be a shithead. You can however blame banks because you're not specifically blaming a person and pretty much everyone can think of one lovely experience with a bank, even moreso with full frontal fuckery like Wells Fargo going on. You can totally blame the rich, you just need to be specific. "The owner of BLAH BLAH is the rear end in a top hat who is trying to gently caress you over! If you were rich, would you gently caress over small towns? NO! So don't accept that bullshit from people like him!" I agree, though, it's really important when talking about this sort of thing not to attack people's aspirations - fighting against the rich always risks butting up against people's actual hopes and dreams, but there are ways to avoid that and still be aggressive and play offense. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 21:27 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The point is that increased productivity good and is what allows a higher standard of living so everyone doesn't have to be dirt farmers. We just have to stop accepting that it means all the benefits goes to the rich. They can't all just up and leave the country because they're only rich because at the end of the day people here in America are the ones buying stuff. They can't just up and leave, there's nowhere else to go. We already have increased and *increasing* productivity, but no wages to go along with it. We don't need anymore productivity! The benefits go to the rich because productivity is forever increasing but they worked out awhile back they don't have to pay anymore actual wages out. Its time to *stop* increasing productivity until wages start rising again to meet it. Serf posted:With a robust wealth redistribution system, we could enjoy the benefits of free trade while also caring for the working class. We don't have a robust wealth redistribution system though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh come on. You're telling me it's impossible for anything other than the big banks to royally gently caress the economy? No, I'm telling you that saying the banks aren't going to destroy the economy is a factually erroneous statement with a long track record of history confirming that it is a factually erroneous statement. Sure there's plenty of contributing factors, but greed ends up in the top 3 in very nearly every financial disaster in American history. Short of something like the spanish flu wiping out a huge portion of the population in a couple of months, if the economy goes belly up for half a decade in the US it's likely happening because some assholes got together in a room to figure out the best possible way to maximize profit while loving everybody sideways. Trump is going to smash our economy. You are hopelessly naive if you don't think the financial sector will be riding the loving bomb out the bay doors and riding their golden parachutes to safety at the last possible second. Protectionism might save the middle class until I'm old enough to retire. I don't give a poo poo what happens to (the royal, not you in particular) your kids. If I have to look for a silver lining, it's that maybe Trump's going to put a stop to the H1B Visas that are diluting the IT profession so badly right now. If I can't get my free trade utopia where society makes sure the free market provides for everybody, then I'm going to do my best to enjoy the last moments of prosperity left in our dying empire Mirthless has issued a correction as of 21:27 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Serf posted:With a robust wealth redistribution system, we could enjoy the benefits of free trade while also caring for the working class. Does this still work sustainably if you're got a really big net trade imbalance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:you can call it a bubble but what happened in 2007 was just short of a full economic collapse, lol. Tens of millions of people lost their jobs and homes. Who knows how many people died from poverty and loss of healthcare? I'm not going to argue that Trump is going to do anything but destroy our economy but lol, what exactly is your position here? You're not saying "they're the lesser of two evils!" you're saying "They're not evil" No, what I'm saying is that they won't be to blame THIS TIME! What exactly does the 2008 crash have to do with the 2017 crash, which is the one we'll need to focus on? The Banks will not be the ones who crash the entire thing THIS TIME, Trump will. Can you people just not distinguish between events, and think I'd the banks are not responsible for one bad thing, that must mean they're not responsible for any bad things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:You can't outright blame the rich and get very far because ultimately people want to be rich and by saying rich people are poo poo you're telling a bunch of people that their dream is to be a shithead. You can however blame banks because you're not specifically blaming a person and pretty much everyone can think of one lovely experience with a bank, even moreso with full frontal fuckery like Wells Fargo going on. Say financial elite. Non socialists hear bankers. Socialists hear capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
and this folks is why no one posts in D&D lol it was fun for a while. ill try and get involved at the county level. cya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:No, what I'm saying is that they won't be to blame THIS TIME! What exactly does the 2008 crash have to do with the 2017 crash, which is the one we'll need to focus on? The Banks will not be the ones who crash the entire thing THIS TIME, Trump will. you are aware of course that you cannot say the cause of the 2017 crash with any certainty at this point because it has not happened yet You appear to be so sure that this time it WON'T be caused by the same people as every other crash that you are treating that as historical fact
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
anime was right posted:and this folks is why no one posts in D&D lol Yeah, I really miss the thread-that-was. I'm gonna start a C-spam Democratic Party Participation thread this week so keep an eye out for that and make sure to post how the attempt gos
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:29
|
|