This is how we will defeat Trump

[Saudade]

We already have the worst wealth gap in history, above the Gilded Age. It is getting worse by day and Trump's policies make it worse. His next budget signals what he plans of taking from the people and giving to the top 1 percent. cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps tells you what he thinks of the people. Another tax cut for the wealthy is just so overdue.

Again, why does wealth gap matter?

What should matter is how well the average worker can rise in wealth him or herself. That is not related to what the top 1% make.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,


That sounds like a good system to me. Germany also has free college for those who can get the grades. Rising to the top in Germany requires more of 'being able to cut it' than having a rich benefactor to bankroll you or going deeply into debt..

If we converted to the kind of system Germany has with education, then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the "free college" idea, but it would require the general public to accept the idea of their children being actively directed to the trade or academic track. Culturally, it would probably take some adjustment for us, because we are significantly less conformist than Germans when it comes to rules and state direction.

As for how economic mobility works over there, there is a certain amount of meritocracy involved, but they also have some cronyism just like us -- some of which is the result of the government.

The only reason public schools are failing is because they have been neglected by racists who have abandoned the concept. There is no underlying principle which means a public education has to be a bad one. I can certainly state that from experience. If public schools are failing it is not due to the concept but the implementation. Where public schools are failing the answer is not going private. It is to reassess how they are being run.

Competition leads to better options for consumers. This is just as true for education as it is for any other market.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nordberg,

We already have the worst wealth gap in history, above the Gilded Age. It is getting worse by day and Trump's policies make it worse. His next budget signals what he plans of taking from the people and giving to the top 1 percent. cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps tells you what he thinks of the people. Another tax cut for the wealthy is just so overdue.

I'm sure he will go for it if reelected. What's to hold him back? Concern for the debt? Didn't stop em last time...

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Wealth inequality is usually a lot less important to focus on as compared with how the average worker is faring. If economic mobility is high, then it doesn't matter how much wealth the top 1% has. In short, we should be focusing on economic mobility.

We need to be focused on both.

I like the overall look of this idea, but I'll have to examine it closer to see if it would be useful.

It has the support of conservatives and progressives. People of virtue from both sides of the isle do not want our government to be bought out. People of weakness on both sides let it happen. This is the best idea I have ever seen to address getting the big money out of our government:

The Anti-Corruption Act

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



We need to be focused on both.

What is the relevance of wealth inequality as opposed to economic mobility?

To put things in perspective, there are several developing nations with very low wealth inequality, but the average person has little to no economic mobility.

By contrast, there are plenty of nations with a high quality of life for the average person that also have high wealth inequality. These nations also tend to have high economic mobility.

There are also other nations with a high quality of life, low wealth inequality, but low economic mobility. This fits a lot of Europe. The average person lives well in Germany, but it's harder to rise in wealth there than here. This inhibits things like innovation and ambition.

Any nation with high economic mobility will tend to have wealth inequality due to differences in work ethic, talent, and ambition among the general populace.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Again, why does wealth gap matter?

What should matter is how well the average worker can rise in wealth him or herself. That is not related to what the top 1% make.

The chance? That's all that is important? There there is this chance of rising? That's not acceptable. There needs to be a floor, below which none can sink. If we fail to provide it the end result of unchecked rising wealth inequality should be rather obvious.

No, we need more than a chance to rise. We need a society that has a place for everyone. We need to ensure that our whole society had everything they need to be secure, peaceful, happy and content. Free to do as they like, to learn, explore, invent, create, enjoy. The goal should be that we become so smart we get machines to do everything we don't feel like doing and nobody even has to work. Now THAT would be an advanced society. We are approaching the technology to do that but greed is standing in the way. Could there be a future so amazing that money itself becomes pointless?

Look at how much humans have developed in the last few hundred years. Where are we going to be in a few hundred more? Still around? We could get wiped out by then... If still around we would no doubt have some pretty amazing technology... By then we'd probably have solved the clean energy issue. And good thing, because humans may end up living in a bubble(s,) which will require plenty of energy.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

If we converted to the kind of system Germany has with education, then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the "free college" idea, but it would require the general public to accept the idea of their children being actively directed to the trade or academic track. Culturally, it would probably take some adjustment for us, because we are significantly less conformist than Germans when it comes to rules and state direction.

As for how economic mobility works over there, there is a certain amount of meritocracy involved, but they also have some cronyism just like us -- some of which is the result of the government.




Competition leads to better options for consumers. This is just as true for education as it is for any other market.

Education is not a product. In a smart society, it is a right.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



Education is not a product. In a smart society, it is a right.

If it's a right, then citizens have a right to choose between the state providing it and the market providing it. Not everyone should be forced to fund one and not instead use that portion of their income to purchase the other.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

What is the relevance of wealth inequality as opposed to economic mobility?

To put things in perspective, there are several developing nations with very low wealth inequality, but the average person has little to no economic mobility.

By contrast, there are plenty of nations with a high quality of life for the average person that also have high wealth inequality. These nations also tend to have high economic mobility.

There are also other nations with a high quality of life, low wealth inequality, but low economic mobility. This fits a lot of Europe. The average person lives well in Germany, but it's harder to rise in wealth there than here. This inhibits things like innovation and ambition.

Any nation with high economic mobility will tend to have wealth inequality due to differences in work ethic, talent, and ambition among the general populace.

Most individuals would trade some economic mobility for high quality of life in a heartbeat. That is essentially what social engineering does. Raises the quality of life, sets a floor below which none shall sink. Sure. It costs some money, which if in the hands of the rich could be invested in more businesses which would create more jobs, but most of those jobs suck, and the workers do not have the quality of life that comes in return for giving up some economic mobility. They get a CHANCE at it. And the odds are against them. Only a few make it to the top. You don't get much pie until you are all the way at the top. Most of the rest hardly get any if they are not constantly in debt with a negative net worth. Most people would prefer a guaranteed sure thing over a chance at something nicer, when what's being wagered is nothing short of the lifestyle you will live for your entire life.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,

The chance? That's all that is important? There there is this chance of rising? That's not acceptable. There needs to be a floor, below which none can sink. If we fail to provide it the end result of unchecked rising wealth inequality should be rather obvious.

Well, frankly, the welfare state reputedly was partially designed as this sort of safeguard, but you'll notice that it didn't affect the wealth inequality trend. So even when we design things to set a floor, it does not seem to affect the top. This would imply that, again, wealth will accumulate at the top regardless of how the floor is handled.

No, we need more than a chance to rise. We need a society that has a place for everyone. We need to ensure that our whole society had everything they need to be secure, peaceful, happy and content. Free to do as they like, to learn, explore, invent, create, enjoy. The goal should be that we become so smart we get machines to do everything we don't feel like doing and nobody even has to work. Now THAT would be an advanced society. We are approaching the technology to do that but greed is standing in the way. Could there be a future so amazing that money itself becomes pointless?

Automation somewhat accomplishes this, but the reason why it is a superior approach to government doing so is that it is driven by supply and demand. Central planning has plenty of practical limits that should not be crossed. A good example of what happens when they are crossed is China.

Look at how much humans have developed in the last few hundred years. Where are we going to be in a few hundred more? Still around? We could get wiped out by then... If still around we would no doubt have some pretty amazing technology... By then we'd probably have solved the clean energy issue. And good thing, because humans may end up living in a bubble(s,) which will require plenty of energy.

Technology can indeed do many amazing things, but this is driven by ambition and innovation, not government.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



Most individuals would trade some economic mobility for high quality of life in a heartbeat. That is essentially what social engineering does. Raises the quality of life, sets a floor below which none shall sink. Sure. It costs some money, which if in the hands of the rich could be invested in more businesses which would create more jobs, but most of those jobs suck, and the workers do not have the quality of life that comes in return for giving up some economic mobility. They get a CHANCE at it. And the odds are against them. Only a few make it to the top. You don't get much pie until you are all the way at the top. Most of the rest hardly get any if they are not constantly in debt with a negative net worth. Most people would prefer a guaranteed sure thing over a chance at something nicer, when what's being wagered is nothing short of the lifestyle you will live for your entire life.

Again, we already have a substantial welfare state. I don't see why we should expand it further, but I'm fine with reforming it. I'd be fine with replacing all of it with a UBI, for example, as long as the amount given out is reasonable.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

If it's a right, then citizens have a right to choose between the state providing it and the market providing it. Not everyone should be forced to fund one and not instead use that portion of their income to purchase the other.

Everyone is not forced to pay for public school. Usually it is just property owners who are forced to pay for public school. If they wish to pay extra for a private school that has always been their prerogative. Nothing prevents it.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,


Everyone is not forced to pay for public school. Usually it is just property owners who are forced to pay for public school. If they wish to pay extra for a private school that has always been their prerogative. Nothing prevents it.

That's not really true. Any state with an income tax uses some of the money gained for state funds toward education. It is true that most of this money is used for the university level of education, but plenty of states also supplement the budgets of certain counties or cities for precollegiate education. The city of St. Louis, for example, had its schools run by the state of Missouri due to some budgeting issues. If I'm not mistaken, this is still the case today for them.

Also, the federal government throws a lot of money at education funding at the collegiate level and precollegiate levels via the Department of Education and, more specifically, through the Title 1 program.

So, there is a lot of money coming from all citizens that goes toward public schools with a wide range of results.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Well, frankly, the welfare state reputedly was partially designed as this sort of safeguard, but you'll notice that it didn't affect the wealth inequality trend. So even when we design things to set a floor, it does not seem to affect the top. This would imply that, again, wealth will accumulate at the top regardless of how the floor is handled.

Agreed. So it's OK to set a floor, because without it, and constantly increasing wealth disparity, more and more of society would end up with nothing as time goes by. The end result being lots of people with nothing and a few with everything, a totally lopsided society and a ticking time bomb for a revolution. It's not sustainable.

Automation somewhat accomplishes this, but the reason why it is a superior approach to government doing so is that it is driven by supply and demand. Central planning has plenty of practical limits that should not be crossed. A good example of what happens when they are crossed is China.

Supply and demand holds it back. We are on the cusp of creating machines so advanced that these machines can dream up and create future machines that we can't yet imagine. All they require is the raw materials and the energy. These machines will be extremely expensive at first, but able to reproduce themselves, given the proper facility, materials and energy. Those who spent big money to develop them will not wish to give away the technology. So it will be restricted to the rich. If the public got access to it, it would be transformative. But the laws of supply and demand will hold it back because only a few will be able to afford it, and they won't be getting it to share it with those who cannot pay for it.

Technology can indeed do many amazing things, but this is driven by ambition and innovation, not government.

It is made possible by both. Many of the technological advances we enjoy today came as a result of the government-run space race. Right? That one? The government that can't ever do anything right? Went to the moon. Check. Been there, got the T shirt.

Guess how much technology was the result of World War I and II government war efforts? If you said a lot, you are correct.

When government is motivated to meet a big challenge, it can combine with capitalism and socialism to fulfill big goals requiring ambition, innovation, planning, funding, management and execution. It is THE central organization of our entire country.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Again, we already have a substantial welfare state. I don't see why we should expand it further, but I'm fine with reforming it. I'd be fine with replacing all of it with a UBI, for example, as long as the amount given out is reasonable.

Yes, we've already discussed that. We are in agreement on that concept, probably in disagreement about the funding and amount given out. But if we had a reasonable UBI that could be lived on in comfort, I would be totally fine with eliminating the minimum wage. People should work because they want to and they think it's worth it. Not because they have to, to stay alive and have a life. Work should be more respected. Employers would have to pay whatever it takes to get people to want to work, knowing that if they don't pay what workers feel the job is worth, nobody will take the job.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,

Agreed. So it's OK to set a floor, because without it, and constantly increasing wealth disparity, more and more of society would end up with nothing as time goes by. The end result being lots of people with nothing and a few with everything, a totally lopsided society and a ticking time bomb for a revolution. It's not sustainable.

Generally speaking, wealth is only hoarded when investing it is less desirable. The wealthy invest in a lot of things, and they invest most often when the business environment is most attractive. The more you tax them and the more you regulate things, the less they like to invest.

If we look at the societies where revolutions have occurred due to wealth disparity, the applicable economies tended to be feudalist. This is distinctly different from capitalist. Feudalist societies and economies involve a heavy amount of government intervention that takes from the working class and gives to the wealthy. They also tend to interpret property rights in such a way that significant property is only owned by oligarchies. Most importantly, these societies also have very low economic mobility. This is the most significant factor for why a revolution can occur. If a society does not allow for people to rise in income via business and hard work, then they have no reason to continue supporting said system.

Our system is nothing like these in most respects. However, there are certainly some states that tax people heavily and consequently make economic mobility low. We tend to see this problem most blatantly manifest in NY and California. This is why so many people leave these states to get tax relief and regulatory relief.

Supply and demand holds it back. We are on the cusp of creating machines so advanced that these machines can dream up and create future machines that we can't yet imagine. All they require is the raw materials and the energy. These machines will be extremely expensive at first, but able to reproduce themselves, given the proper facility, materials and energy. Those who spent big money to develop them will not wish to give away the technology. So it will be restricted to the rich. If the public got access to it, it would be transformative. But the laws of supply and demand will hold it back because only a few will be able to afford it, and they won't be getting it to share it with those who cannot pay for it.

Any innovation will be expensive at first. This is because you have to pay for the cost of developing said technology. If there is no period in which someone can reap the benefits of research and development, then why would anyone choose to innovate?

If you want to reform patent laws to have shorter exclusivity periods, that's one thing, but any system that actually allows for innovation will have to follow this pattern of temporary exclusivity and expense.

It is made possible by both. Many of the technological advances we enjoy today came as a result of the government-run space race. Right? That one? The government that can't ever do anything right? Went to the moon. Check. Been there, got the T shirt.

Guess how much technology was the result of World War I and II government war efforts? If you said a lot, you are correct.

When government is motivated to meet a big challenge, it can combine with capitalism and socialism to fulfill big goals requiring ambition, innovation, planning, funding, management and execution.

Space and war are different from most endeavors, in that they don't operate like normal markets. After dramatically changing NASA in recent years, private industry has picked up some of the slack, but space exploration overall is not yet a profitable thing to research. From that perspective, state involvement makes sense. It also poses national security concerns.

Because war involves direct state involvement by definition, it's also not a standard market.

All that aside, having government invest in research through universities is fine. From that perspective, yes, government helps innovation. However, if we look at most industries overall, innovation is done outside of government.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



Yes, we've already discussed that. We are in agreement on that concept, probably in disagreement about the funding and amount given out. But if we had a reasonable UBI that could be lived on in comfort, I would be totally fine with eliminating the minimum wage. People should work because they want to and they think it's worth it. Not because they have to, to stay alive and have a life. Work should be more respected. Employers would have to pay whatever it takes to get people to want to work, knowing that if they don't pay what workers feel the job is worth, nobody will take the job.

We definitely disagree on the amount and rationale. Work is something that any able-bodied person should do. If you don't want to work, you should either set aside the money to retire, or you should live in the wilderness.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

That's not really true. Any state with an income tax uses some of the money gained for state funds toward education. It is true that most of this money is used for the university level of education, but plenty of states also supplement the budgets of certain counties or cities for precollegiate education. The city of St. Louis, for example, had its schools run by the state of Missouri due to some budgeting issues. If I'm not mistaken, this is still the case today for them.

Also, the federal government throws a lot of money at education funding at the collegiate level and precollegiate levels via the Department of Education and, more specifically, through the Title 1 program.

So, there is a lot of money coming from all citizens that goes toward public schools with a wide range of results.

OK. You're right. I had it wrong. I won't quibble about that. But I still think it is in the general public's interest to pay for quality public schools. If people wish to buy it up above that they are free to if they have the money. A quality K-16 public education should be a right for those who can get the grades.

Those who can't should be shunted out for free public trades training or private with public grant. As long as they can pass proficiency and advance through the system. Those who can't need to be weeded out so they don't impact the education of others. The drop outs need to get some kind of government funded psychological help, not just turned loose to get into trouble.

Again, there needs to be a government solution here, because capitalism has zero plan for dealing with drop-outs. Oh, I guess there is prisons for profit. But that is an expensive way of dealing with mental health issues.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Generally speaking, wealth is only hoarded when investing it is less desirable. The wealthy invest in a lot of things, and they invest most often when the business environment is most attractive. The more you tax them and the more you regulate things, the less they like to invest.

If we look at the societies where revolutions have occurred due to wealth disparity, the applicable economies tended to be feudalist. This is distinctly different from capitalist. Feudalist societies and economies involve a heavy amount of government intervention that takes from the working class and gives to the wealthy. They also tend to interpret property rights in such a way that significant property is only owned by oligarchies. Most importantly, these societies also have very low economic mobility. This is the most significant factor for why a revolution can occur. If a society does not allow for people to rise in income via business and hard work, then they have no reason to continue supporting said system.

Our system is nothing like these in most respects. However, there are certainly some states that tax people heavily and consequently make economic mobility low. We tend to see this problem most blatantly manifest in NY and California. This is why so many people leave these states to get tax relief and regulatory relief.

Louisiana, with the port and the Mississippi River, and the oil wells, has lots of work. They have been under exclusive Republican control since the Civil Rights Act. And for most of the people there, with all those great jobs, including all that economic mobility, that is one of the poorest states. What's going on?

Any innovation will be expensive at first. This is because you have to pay for the cost of developing said technology. If there is no period in which someone can reap the benefits of research and development, then why would anyone choose to innovate?

If you want to reform patent laws to have shorter exclusivity periods, that's one thing, but any system that actually allows for innovation will have to follow this pattern of temporary exclusivity and expense.





Space and war are different from most endeavors, in that they don't operate like normal markets. After dramatically changing NASA in recent years, private industry has picked up some of the slack, but space exploration overall is not yet a profitable thing to research. From that perspective, state involvement makes sense. It also poses national security concerns.

Because war involves direct state involvement by definition, it's also not a standard market.

All that aside, having government invest in research through universities is fine. From that perspective, yes, government helps innovation. However, if we look at most industries overall, innovation is done outside of government.

Right. But there is more to advancing our society than innovation. Innovation is important, but not everything. Part of the purpose of this nation is to ensure domestic tranquility. That means we want as many happy people as possible. Extreme and growing wealth inequality impairs part of the purpose of our nation. Just as we are, and need to be, a hybrid balance of capitalism and socialism, we need a balance of innovation and government management to ensure domestic tranquility.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well, frankly, the welfare state reputedly was partially designed as this sort of safeguard, but you'll notice that it didn't affect the wealth inequality trend. So even when we design things to set a floor, it does not seem to affect the top. This would imply that, again, wealth will accumulate at the top regardless of how the floor is handled.

Automation somewhat accomplishes this, but the reason why it is a superior approach to government doing so is that it is driven by supply and demand. Central planning has plenty of practical limits that should not be crossed. A good example of what happens when they are crossed is China.

Technology can indeed do many amazing things, but this is driven by ambition and innovation, not government.

If everything is equal, as PoliTalker wants it to be, then where's the incentive for trying to better oneself; because eventually everyone just become the lowest common denominator, while expecting the most they can get.