quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

Just look at all the positivity oozing from this post. I'd almost say that your tone has been most decidedly NOT positive from the get-go, then you made one quasi-positive post and expected the entire board to pivot with you, but... you know me!

Your need to control the narrative and control even the reactions of other posters is mind-blowing to me. Your need for approval and praise is unhealthy to say the least. But again, you know me.

You think I come on here for praise and approval?

When you look at the responses I typically get, do you really think that would make sense?

Honestly, I would have already left this site if I did not get PMs from people encouraging me. I still want to leave to be honest.

I could go years in the real world and not have as many people taking swipes at me that I have gotten in a day or two on here. Does that make me a snowflake or just a person that does not want to use limited precious free time to deal with people being ugly? Why would ANYONE want to use their free time doing this?

And if I was posting about how the party was awesome or this party stinks, I would expect the heat.

However, my posts on COVID have been very non-partisan. Outside of some foolish Republicans resisting mask mandates and some autocratic Democrats being a bit too excited about shutdowns, this is really not a partisan issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

Just look at all the positivity oozing from this post. I'd almost say that your tone has been most decidedly NOT positive from the get-go, then you made one quasi-positive post and expected the entire board to pivot with you, but... you know me!

Your need to control the narrative and control even the reactions of other posters is mind-blowing to me. Your need for approval and praise is unhealthy to say the least. But again, you know me.

You think I come on here for praise and approval?

When you look at the responses I typically get, do you really think that would make sense?

Honestly, I would have already left this site if I did not get PMs from people encouraging me. I still want to leave to be honest.

I could go years in the real world and not have as many people taking swipes at me that I have gotten in a day or two on here. Does that make me a snowflake or just a person that does not want to use limited precious free time to deal with people being ugly? Why would ANYONE want to use their free time doing this?

And if I was posting about how the party was awesome or this party stinks, I would expect the heat.

However, my posts on COVID have been very non-partisan. Outside of some foolish Republicans resisting mask mandates and some autocratic Democrats being a bit too excited about shutdowns, this is really not a partisan issue.

I don't care about your PMs or conversations in real life. Your posts here have been consistently arrogant and negative. Even in this most recent post of yours do you realize you are mansplaining to everyone why your posts are of such quality? Guess what? You don't get to control the reactions and opinions of the other posters no matter how insightful you believe you are.

Do I think you come on here for praise and approval? Yes.

P.S. Hate to break it to you but EVERYONE gets encouraging PMs - even dumb old me that according to you doesn't understand economics, finance, capitalism and whatever else you might have mentioned in one of your many lengthy posts you chose to bestow upon the board with your limited precious free time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

Just look at all the positivity oozing from this post. I'd almost say that your tone has been most decidedly NOT positive from the get-go, then you made one quasi-positive post and expected the entire board to pivot with you, but... you know me!

Your need to control the narrative and control even the reactions of other posters is mind-blowing to me. Your need for approval and praise is unhealthy to say the least. But again, you know me.

You think I come on here for praise and approval?

When you look at the responses I typically get, do you really think that would make sense?

Honestly, I would have already left this site if I did not get PMs from people encouraging me. I still want to leave to be honest.

I could go years in the real world and not have as many people taking swipes at me that I have gotten in a day or two on here. Does that make me a snowflake or just a person that does not want to use limited precious free time to deal with people being ugly? Why would ANYONE want to use their free time doing this?

And if I was posting about how the party was awesome or this party stinks, I would expect the heat.

However, my posts on COVID have been very non-partisan. Outside of some foolish Republicans resisting mask mandates and some autocratic Democrats being a bit too excited about shutdowns, this is really not a partisan issue.

I don't care about your PMs or conversations in real life. Your posts here have been consistently arrogant and negative. Even in this most recent post of yours do you realize you are mansplaining to everyone why your posts are of such quality? Guess what? You don't get to control the reactions and opinions of the other posters no matter how insightful you believe you are.

Do I think you come on here for praise and approval? Yes.

P.S. Hate to break it to you but EVERYONE gets encouraging PMs - even dumb old me that according to you doesn't understand economics, finance, capitalism and whatever else you might have mentioned in one of your many lengthy posts you chose to bestow upon the board with your limited precious free time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

Just look at all the positivity oozing from this post. I'd almost say that your tone has been most decidedly NOT positive from the get-go, then you made one quasi-positive post and expected the entire board to pivot with you, but... you know me!

Your need to control the narrative and control even the reactions of other posters is mind-blowing to me. Your need for approval and praise is unhealthy to say the least. But again, you know me.

You think I come on here for praise and approval?

When you look at the responses I typically get, do you really think that would make sense?

Honestly, I would have already left this site if I did not get PMs from people encouraging me. I still want to leave to be honest.

I could go years in the real world and not have as many people taking swipes at me that I have gotten in a day or two on here. Does that make me a snowflake or just a person that does not want to use limited precious free time to deal with people being ugly? Why would ANYONE want to use their free time doing this?

And if I was posting about how the party was awesome or this party stinks, I would expect the heat.

However, my posts on COVID have been very non-partisan. Outside of some foolish Republicans resisting mask mandates and some autocratic Democrats being a bit too excited about shutdowns, this is really not a partisan issue.

I don't care about your PMs or conversations in real life. Your posts here have been consistently arrogant and negative. Even in this most recent post of yours do you realize you are mansplaining to everyone why your posts are of such quality? Guess what? You don't get to control the reactions and opinions of the other posters no matter how insightful you believe you are.

Do I think you come on here for praise and approval? Yes.

P.S. Hate to break it to you but EVERYONE gets encouraging PMs - even dumb old me that according to you doesn't understand economics, finance, capitalism and whatever else you might have mentioned in one of your many lengthy posts you chose to bestow upon the board with your limited precious free time.

I did not mean to imply that I was the only person that gets positive PMs if that is how you took it. Although, IMO your P.S. statement just shows a desperate need to cut me down any way you could. Apparently, you think I need it.

As for the rest of it, I guess if you cannot see that some of my responses that you consider negative and arrogant are as much of about how people are treating me than about how I treat other people, then I think we can agree that we will never agree. Take the above post where you claim I was being negative. This was after a post where you dismissed what I wrote with a comment about how it was "too many words". As if a paucity of words is a good way to try and describe complex economic concepts.

I would think if I wanted praise that I would be thrilled to post under my real name, but when people attack unome, it is not really as big of a deal. Snowflake protection and all. Conversely, this would also limit any praise value though too, wouldn't it? No one that really knows who I am will ever praise me here. And that is OK by me.

All this is rather silly though as you have still not posted any ideas on COVID, but rather just ideas about me. I value insightful posts, even those that argue against my points, but attacking me and offering no value in the rebuttal? I may react to that with attitudes that are seemingly negative and arrogant, but that is because I make an effort to try and explain my ideas and it is hard to act respectful of some of the ugly and simple one sentence dismissive responses that I get in return.

If you think I am wrong on anything I write, just explain why you think and make good arguments. They do not even have to be arguments that I will find good. Make ones that you find to be good. If I wanted to live in an echo chamber, I would certainly avoid these threads.

quote:

Your post seems snowflakish IMO Dave.....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

I wasn't even thinking about the crowds. I was thinking about the players and putting THEM at risk.

And I agree that we ALL need to return to normal. I just disagree on how soon we should be pushing that envelope.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

Actually, I have seen many do that. In general, they get shot down because they don't control both houses and the executive branch at the same time. Pretty weak argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

Actually, I have seen many do that. In general, they get shot down because they don't control both houses and the executive branch at the same time. Pretty weak argument.

I'm curious, who has done that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

Actually, I have seen many do that. In general, they get shot down because they don't control both houses and the executive branch at the same time. Pretty weak argument.

I'm curious, who has done that?

I believe him. They do it. They know it won't go anywhere. Tell voters back home, I tried but the other party was against me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

Actually, I have seen many do that. In general, they get shot down because they don't control both houses and the executive branch at the same time. Pretty weak argument.

I'm curious, who has done that?

I believe him. They do it. They know it won't go anywhere. Tell voters back home, I tried but the other party was against me.

John Kerry in 2004 promised to raise his own taxes, but not raise them on the middle class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

I have yet to see a Senator or Rep go to a podium and say they will raise their own taxes, cut their own pay, and impose a wealth tax on themselves. They run up to the podium and talk about the rich that are richer than them.....and still do nothing about it.

Funny how that works.

Actually, I have seen many do that. In general, they get shot down because they don't control both houses and the executive branch at the same time. Pretty weak argument.

I'm curious, who has done that?

I believe him. They do it. They know it won't go anywhere. Tell voters back home, I tried but the other party was against me.

John Kerry in 2004 promised to raise his own taxes, but not raise them on the middle class.

When you marry a ketchup queen, what's a few extra bucks in taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

Just look at all the positivity oozing from this post. I'd almost say that your tone has been most decidedly NOT positive from the get-go, then you made one quasi-positive post and expected the entire board to pivot with you, but... you know me!

Your need to control the narrative and control even the reactions of other posters is mind-blowing to me. Your need for approval and praise is unhealthy to say the least. But again, you know me.

You think I come on here for praise and approval?

When you look at the responses I typically get, do you really think that would make sense?

Honestly, I would have already left this site if I did not get PMs from people encouraging me. I still want to leave to be honest.

I could go years in the real world and not have as many people taking swipes at me that I have gotten in a day or two on here. Does that make me a snowflake or just a person that does not want to use limited precious free time to deal with people being ugly? Why would ANYONE want to use their free time doing this?

And if I was posting about how the party was awesome or this party stinks, I would expect the heat.

However, my posts on COVID have been very non-partisan. Outside of some foolish Republicans resisting mask mandates and some autocratic Democrats being a bit too excited about shutdowns, this is really not a partisan issue.

I don't care about your PMs or conversations in real life. Your posts here have been consistently arrogant and negative. Even in this most recent post of yours do you realize you are mansplaining to everyone why your posts are of such quality? Guess what? You don't get to control the reactions and opinions of the other posters no matter how insightful you believe you are.

Do I think you come on here for praise and approval? Yes.

P.S. Hate to break it to you but EVERYONE gets encouraging PMs - even dumb old me that according to you doesn't understand economics, finance, capitalism and whatever else you might have mentioned in one of your many lengthy posts you chose to bestow upon the board with your limited precious free time.

I did not mean to imply that I was the only person that gets positive PMs if that is how you took it. Although, IMO your P.S. statement just shows a desperate need to cut me down any way you could. Apparently, you think I need it.

As for the rest of it, I guess if you cannot see that some of my responses that you consider negative and arrogant are as much of about how people are treating me than about how I treat other people, then I think we can agree that we will never agree. Take the above post where you claim I was being negative. This was after a post where you dismissed what I wrote with a comment about how it was "too many words". As if a paucity of words is a good way to try and describe complex economic concepts.

I would think if I wanted praise that I would be thrilled to post under my real name, but when people attack unome, it is not really as big of a deal. Snowflake protection and all. Conversely, this would also limit any praise value though too, wouldn't it? No one that really knows who I am will ever praise me here. And that is OK by me.

All this is rather silly though as you have still not posted any ideas on COVID, but rather just ideas about me. I value insightful posts, even those that argue against my points, but attacking me and offering no value in the rebuttal? I may react to that with attitudes that are seemingly negative and arrogant, but that is because I make an effort to try and explain my ideas and it is hard to act respectful of some of the ugly and simple one sentence dismissive responses that I get in return.

If you think I am wrong on anything I write, just explain why you think and make good arguments. They do not even have to be arguments that I will find good. Make ones that you find to be good. If I wanted to live in an echo chamber, I would certainly avoid these threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't understand the concept of a quarantine 'shutting down the economy' or 'the solution being worse than the problem'. It seems to me that the supply of food, water, energy, people, and natural resources is a constant. The only thing that changes in a quarantine is how, where, and at what rate money changes hands. Money is a man-made concept that theoretically should be able to be suspended for a short period of time for the health and safety of the people. Capitalism and a capitalist health care system doesn't seem to be able to handle a pandemic like this. It could be suspended for a short period of time until we have this thing licked.

Not be be mean, but you could have just stopped at "I don't understand". The economy is something so complex and vast that you could have a PHD in Finance or Macroeconomics and still only know so much.

Right off the bat, the supply of almost everything is NOT a constant. Farmers will grow more of this food or that food if the prices are right. Marginal land will be planted if the prices are high and lay fallow or used for cattle feed if prices are lower. We saw just this year that pig farmers actually killed baby pigs because the prices were too low to raise them and make money doing so.

If there is a greater demand for water, prices rise and more expensive ways of getting water, like desalinization, become economically viable.

Same with energy. Cost of energy goes up and solar panels become more viable. Building a new nuclear plant, or oil field or wind farm becomes more viable.

People will want more money if the demand goes up for labor and also if costs go up.

Health care is trickier because if the only way to save yourself or your loved one, you want to pay any price. Government certainly has to be involved in a more substantial way in health care because supply and demand are not going to work as well since supply can be controlled by patents and demand is almost completely price inelastic for life-saving drugs and services. Inelastic meaning that you would pay almost any price, but you also would not buy more if they were cheap because you only need one heart surgery if that is all you need. You are not having another one because of a BOGO sale!

The damage that shutting down the economy does is huge, but every business is different. The easy ones to see is how quarantine harms anyone in the travel or tourism industries. Also, the restaurant and bar business. Events, concerts, etc. This affects the commercial real estate market, the ability for people to pay rent, the ability of landlords to pay mortgages.

You can shut all of this down, and we virtually did, but huge amount of people are employed in these industries. And they take the money they make in profits and wages and spend it in other areas of the economy.

Let's say you shut down 10% of the economy. What will happen? A recession. A huge one. Why? Because you cannot make the economy 10% smaller and not have a smaller pie for everyone to get a piece of.

And the effects are worse than just a lost 10%. So many businesses have fixed costs that cannot be changed so losing 10% of revenue could be the difference of making a decent amount of money or losing a large amount of money. When businesses start losing money that was not planned for, they only have a few options. They can dip into reserves if they have them, but after that they have to reduce expenses. They cannot pay less in rent or mortgage because they could be evicted and they cannot charge more for their products because competition will not let them. So they may have to let some employees go. And this just compounds the overall economic problem.

You just cannot suspend all of these realities because they have bad results during government shutdowns. And, when the government tries to intervene, it normally goes horribly wrong.

The first shutdowns were somewhat necessary to stop the surge and to figure out the full extent of the problem and how to treat it. We are way past the point where that makes any sense in a larger sense. But, there are clearly some areas that are, and should be, still shuttered. Bars and nightclubs. Full stadiums. But even these activities should be seen as a trade off where we are purposefully hurting our economy and people in those industries because the solution is better than the problem created.

But, at some point, in most learned people's opinion, there gets to be a point where the the solution of forced shutdowns is worse than the problem. This is easier to see in economic ventures, but harder to measure in educational ones. Hoiseth sniffs that lives are more important than times tables and this false choice is correct, but pointless. The point is how much damage are we created to our population and country if we teach large percentages of our population less over, say, a whole year, what happens over the long term?

But, there is not a short-term economic effect of not teaching children much for a year. The damage will happen in the future. I guess that is the point with all education, isn't it? In the short-term it is an expense with no immediate return and the benefits are all future based.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

tl;dr

Too long, didn't read.

And now we know why you don't know. ;)

I tried to explain supply and demands affect on supply, the effect of shutdowns on business, people and the economy as a whole and touch on how this effect is different and harder to measure for educational shutdowns or distance learning. My long post was shorter than a Cliff Notes version of those things. You cannot explain hard and complex things in a paragraph.

Let's just hope the people making these decisions are OK reading longer and more complex ideas or we are in big trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

Who in their right mind thinks the economy is doing great and 99% are doing “well”?

Big box stores are doing well.. small businesses are dying all over the map.

Major corporations are riding tax breaks and waiver and exceptions to regulation to record profits.. the guys in the meat packing plants for Tyson, butterball, IBP, hormel and Oscar meyar are dying of Covid like it’s the new normal.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are doing really well..

Normal people like me have to budget a restricted income as carefully as possible and buy off brand foods and generic store brand OTC items on sale to make ends meet.

Are you really that far out of touch with children and others who are hitting up food pantries at record rates.. ?

That indicates to me the economy is a shit storm of rich getting richer..

While other are being forced into lower and lower economic standards for simple survival..

HOw far up is consumer debt?

How many thousands of mortgages are in danger of default across businesses and single family dwellings?

C’mon, man..

Seriously, you think Jeff bezo and Elon musk and bill gates “ raise us all up “ financially?

Get real.

And you wonder why people attack your IDIOTIC positions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

That was a pretty mean-spirited post, Bill, but I think your comments say way more about you than they do about me. Well, they do show a clear hatred of me, but that is on you and not me.

I literally came on here posting about how COVID was going down and how it was exciting and I have been attacked in a pretty ugly way. I cannot even explain the attacks except that political discourse in this country has been completely Trumpified.

Do not want to discuss issues? Just try and crush the messenger. It was ugly when Trump did it, but it is not any prettier when others do it.

The strange thing is that I do not think my message about COVID was at all controversial. It certainly was not mean-spirited, quite the opposite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

I guess I don’t make this clear..


He states that as Kennedy said a rising tide lifts all ships...

That is far, far from the reality of our current situation.

ARe Jeff bezos, Elon musk and bill gates and Pfizer and modern and all the corporations whose value and profits have risen steadily, somehow raised us all as they rise?

Do these corporations spend their profits on practical implementation of policy, as corporations, to better the lives of all their employees..

No, they give CEO aNd Board members huge bonuses, retirement plans and pay dividends to the shareholders who had the ability to gamble money in the stock market.

According to the stock and financial markets, the economy is doing great...

Record highs on Dow, NASDAQ, S&P....the rich tide is rising... is my dingy king up, or going down?





Pfizer and Moderna could score $32 billion in Covid-19 vaccine sales -- in 2021 alone

I lost an entire follow up post to the one above..

I do not see corporate and top tier money makers paying huge, tax bills..

Pfizer and moderne will score 32 billion...

Will they pay 3.2 billion in taxes?

Will they pay the top rate of 36%?

Will they pay 11.5 billion in taxes?

I’m sure they will suffer greatly if they only rake in 20 billion after taxes.. if they even pay taxes..

Onome is actually praising the “ Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump “ basically unaltered” economic policy that apparently says that some how a robust economy, with record corporate profits and tax breaks handed out like Christmas presents to those sitting on piles of capitalist wealth, have somehow been responsible for our current great economic boom, despite some setbacks.

Is that about right..?

Is government policy driving a great economic growrh pattern that helps all Americans?

Raises all ships?

Has our public government debt outstripped GDP?

Who pays this debt?

Profit records for corporate and special interests is payin down this national debt thru record tax receipts T the corporate level of 36%, right?

Is GDP rising or falling?
I know the answer...
But I don’t have a Masters in economics or even one single class in macroeconomics, so I don’t know wtf I’m talking about.