Rental vacancies went up during the recession. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong.
And your multi-family complexes bore the brunt of that.
Last edited:
Poll: What is your most important election issue?
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
Rental vacancies went up during the recession. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong.
And your multi-family complexes bore the brunt of that.
Sure we are better having that work visa worker spending their money here than in India. My plan would put the tariff on candy too. All foreign made goods get the hammer. Move the candy factory back across the boarder to the U.S. and see your profits go up. We want all workers to be self sufficient, so we pay a living wage for all labor, even illegal. Arrest and jail employers those who cheat. It's not that complicated and government isn't the problem, but the solution.
His healthcare plan was absolutely socialist. That's what socialism does. It takes from the middle class, gives to the poor, and lets the rich and politically connected profit off it all.
Businesses will move, grow, downsize, put themselves up for sale, buy others based on how much money they make. this is what you are alluding to. This is not a zero sum game which I am sure you know.
As an example, the govt has made many businesses suffer by letting the internet grow in the world of commerce. Had they taxed the internet more broadly, it wouldn't be the massive deflationary agent that it is now. Just one example of where innovation and a lack on regulation has had an unforeseen negative impact on a multitude of legacy industries.
No a socialist plan would have simply done away with the insurance companies and been Medicare for all. What we got was a corporatist plan which is more like fascism.
Banks and regulation. Pressing the Fed Housing Authority to keep credit tight. Increased taxes for the wealthy. The ACA is of course socialist but as you point out not the way it should be, at all. These were attacks on capitalism and it is debatable as to the success thus far. His goal was to succeed in a substantial redistribution of wealth and to collapse the enormous wealth gap. The system stopped working because his admin and congress could get nothing accomplished.
I am not sure I would call it fascist. All the corporates that are involved are balking. After all the HMOs and Hospital groups looked to merge, to avoid the massive cost explosion, the remaining ones are now threatening to pull out of the exchanges.
I think Bernie has those same goals. I can't imagine he would have any success either. But capitalist would be wise to recognize redistributing to the consumer makes capitalism go. Far from an attack, redistribution is the life force of capitalism. Without it, the whole system eats itself.
You're wrong.
Don't know about Iowa, but Florida had a ridiculous housing crunch. Everyone lost their houses and needed to get an apartment but there weren't enough apartment buildings and no one was building new ones.
Wrong. Taking away from someone and redistributing it to someone else deemed "deserving" by government is just as bad as the greedy rich guy who won't share. Redistribution needs to be voluntary, efficient, and effective. Government is none of those.
Oh that's just silly. Redistribution simply needs to be. How we achieve that necessity should be democratic, which makes it voluntarily. Only a government program has the advantage of being stable and reliable which is the root of efficient and effective. So we covered all your objections.
You beat me to it, but this is the single most important in almost all presidential elections.
I assure you we disagree as to whom is best make these appointments.
Yes, a socialist government run insurance company. But technically they are a healthcare payment guarantor. Because they aren't gambling on making a profit, they aren't really insuring anything. That's also why they are more efficient than the private market.
No, their just stealing and running things inefficiently because there's no need for them to be profitable. Who do you think is going to end up running those government run insurance companies? It's going to be the same people who run the private insurance companies, but now they'll have an infinite amount of money to line their pockets.
I'm not tracking with you. The government employees who run Medicare can't just take whatever they want home like the folks who run United Healthcare can. And Medicare today has lower costs than its private equivalents.
See, you have it backwards. The people who run United Healthcare just can't take anything, because they'll run out of money and be put out of business. This is not a worry of government entities. The government will just take more from the taxpayers and continue to run inefficiently.
This is why I always like empirical arguments. Because I can track your logic here, but if I look at reality I see you're empirically wrong.
Oh yeah? What am I wrong about? That if someone runs their business terrbily, then it will go out of business? Or am I wrong about my statement that, if the government runs their business terribly, then it will go out of business? I can't wait to see how you dodge this post!
You are wrong about the empirical results. The top Medicare guy makes much less than the top Unitedhealthcare guy while running the organization with less overhead. The profit motive doesn't always make things efficient or less expensive.
Making much less? Do you know how people like Harry Reid have exponentially increased their wealth on a Senator's salary?
Dare I ask if you have anything, preferably not from the government, proving that Medicare is run with less overhead? I'd also wonder who covers more people.
The fact that you don't understand that the threat of going under makes a business more efficient is alarming.
I voted income inequality which I think plays into bad trade deals. As mentioned SCOTUS appointments have to be at the top of the list. A peace candidate who at least has the fourth in their radar is a must. Jingos be damned.
I said that it all depends on where you live and other circumstances than just the amount of money. I tend to look at the purchasing power and not the strict amount of money.
I agree, but I really don't think that's possible. It's unfortunate, but everyone who gets to that position is already bought and paid for.
I'll leave you to google it, but it was a point during the ACA debates that Medicare has an administrative cost of 2-3% while private insurance averages in the teens. The fact that empirical data has less weight than your paper logic is alarming. Data is your friend.
Last edited:
Yes. Symptoms of sociopathy or psychopathy and they generally vote Republican. In simplest terms, their ability to empathize with others - to put themselves in another's shoes - is impaired or missing.
It's hard to get membership in a political party declared a mental disease, but today's GOP surely a good place to find psychopaths.
Not correct. Money is a commodity. The Fed is only one of the players that manipulates the market,
Inflation
[in-fley-shuh n]
noun
1.
Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation ).
Jesus, Jesus. You need to stay out of discussions concerning economics. Inflation is the increase of the money supply. The Fed is the body that controls the money supply.
No, inflation is a reduction in the purchasing power of the currency. In other words, it's about the value of the money.
We've been over this a zillion times. You usually seem to get it after a lengthy discussion, but I don't have the patience to do it again.
If you have an increasing supply of currency, then the value of said currency goes down. There's really nothing to debate about this.
You're absolutely clueless. The purchasing power is reduced because of inflation. If you print more dollars in circulation, it devalues what you have in your pocket.
SMH. Inflation is defined as a decline in the purchasing power of the money. Inflation is not the cause of that decline.
Printing money CAN cause inflation. But it often doesn't. That's because the value of the money isn't determined by quantity. It's determined by the market. Quantity is just one of the factors the market juggles.
Baffling to me (as usual) that a libertarian can't seem to grasp this.
BTW, if your original assertion were correct, there would have been no inflation prior to the creation of the Fed. That ought to be sufficient to disabuse you of this mistaken belief.
Only because you asked. How do you like your crow served? Inflation was nearly non-existent prior to 1913. The loss of purchasing power is the RESULT of INFLATING the money supply. I don't know why you keep listening to those crony Keynesians. Haven't they f'd things up enough?
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/comm...culator-information/consumer-price-index-1800
And by the way...dictionaries changed the definition a couple of decades ago.
Plenty of periods of inflation before the Fed. But even more important, more periods of recession. For all the reasons that you and I agree to dislike the Fed, it was at least partly designed to prevent and respond to recessions. Obviously not a total success at that. But a partial success.
There's also a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that some inflation is good. Printing more money is one of various ways to try to increase inflation, even if it's only one factor and doesn't necessarily produce that outcome.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
