Corona

[Kriterion_BD]

Whilst talking about economics, a majority of Americans don't understand that Reaganomics ie "trickle down" doesn't really work in a real sense. Here's info from: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-a ... inequality

Wealth — the value of a household’s property and financial assets, minus the value of its debts — is much more highly concentrated than income. The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent.

Trickle down - the corner stone of US Republican economic policy - might be summarized as follows:

The rich are the wealth creators, and taxes unnecessarily take money they've earned, for public consumption by all, rich and poor alike. Stop taxing the rich, and they will create even more wealth, which in turn will trickle down the ladder to the poor who will eventually get richer.

Trickle down does work, in the sense that poor people will eventually make a little bit more money. Its like saying Andy Flower was paid $10,000 a year by ZC in 1995 and Sean Williams makes $50,000 in 2020. Williams might even be "richer" than Flower after adjusting for inflation. But when you consider that the top English or Aussie cricketers in Flowers time made perhaps 50K and now they are making 1 million plus, you realize that Williams is actually poorer by relative comparison. This is a fair analogy of trickle down. One might get "richer" in nominal terms, but not in actual inflation-adjusted terms. Thus the data itself suggest that trickle down doesn't work. Why it doesn't work is actually irrelevant unless you are a philosopher or a academic economist. Thus should be as apolitical as realizing that high crime rates are bad for society. No one cares why crime is bad, we all agree that its bad.

Secondarily are issues like "the rich are wealth creators" or their "hard earned money" gets taxed. This implies that poor people are lazy and undeserving. The overewhelming majority of poor people are not lazy nor undeserving of happiness.

A very important point is that from 1989 to 2016 there were exactly 16 years of Democratic Presidencies (Clinton and Obama)...one might ask how the wealth gap increased so much with "liberal" presidents. The answer there is two-fold. Firstly, Clinton and Obama were very much establishment DC. I do believe Obama was far more left-leaning in ideology than his 8 years of Presidency showed, but he was fettered partly by a Republican Congress and secondly by the fact that much of his legacy would not be judged on what he actually did, but by ad hominem attacks (eg a "socialist" ACA). As a result he was careful to never tread to far from establishment Democratic norms, one notable exception being his refusal to veto UN Security Council resoltution 2334 regarding the legality (or lack thereof) of Israeli settlements. But by then he was a lame duck on his way out the door so it was merely symbolic as he knew President Trump would negate it in the future.

In short America, even most Democrats, are not down with truly progressive ideals.

[Jemisi]

I am not in favour of the version of trickle down that just releases the mega rich. That is offensive.

But I don't agree with the idea that often comes up in this discussion that being poorer than one's neighbours is worse than being poorer than one's ancestors.

It does have an impact upon my envy but it is a hell of a lot better to be poor today than it was to be middle class 100 years ago.

It just is.

Even in the midst of our isolation right now we are doing it in aircon, with fridges, tvs, devices, internet etc. Even the fast food available to the poor is so much better than what was common fare on the tables of people in the 70s let alone the 40s. Poor people in Australia go on holidays to Bali. Overseas travel was unheard of once unless you were emigrating or a sailor or rich. The Grand Tour was for the upper class, like having a private jet these days. But today every second kid in the country goes overseas.

The poor are not getting poorer.

The rich might be getting too rich - for sure, advocate for taxing them more heavily, but the poor in the West are better off than they were a generation ago, heaps better off than 2 generations ago and stacks better off than a century ago.

Wealth inequality is a thing but the poor are better off than they were.

The difference that is most glaring between the US and the rest of the West is the cost of health. That can bring a lower middle class family into poverty quick smart. But even there that has been the way of things in the US forever as well.

[Kriterion_BD]

I am not in favour of the version of trickle down that just releases the mega rich. That is offensive.

But I don't agree with the idea that often comes up in this discussion that being poorer than one's neighbours is worse than being poorer than one's ancestors.

It does have an impact upon my envy but it is a hell of a lot better to be poor today than it was to be middle class 100 years ago.

It just is.

The problem here is that it can lead to illogical equivalents across different countries. You are effectively downplaying poor Americans' poverty by comparing to middle class Zimbabweans (as an example). Here's why that is problematic.

For example, it is sometimes difficult to be gay in America, but its better than being gay in Iran, right? The problem is that for suffering American gays, being in Iran is irrelevant because they are in the US, and would never get a visa to immigrate to Iran to begin with. Its an irrelevant comparison. It would not ease their pain at all in America.

For example, its better to cancer in 2020 when we have surgery, chemo, and radiation therapy available vs having cancer in 1500 AD where some priest would just recite holy verses and you'd die in agony. But does that mean that cancer in 2020 is a pleasant experience or not painful in any way? Of course not. Patients in the 1500 are irrelevant to the a patient in 2020.

[zimbos_05]

I agree with Jemisi a little bit. We definitely are living in a different world and time than our ancestors and perhaps could say we are better off to a degree. I'll use Air travel. Air travel was once a luxury and is now more affordable for example.

In saying that, Air travel was a luxury because the whole plane was essentially a business class kind of service. The moment they crammed people together then they could charge less because they could put more people in. So yes, we are lucky to be able to afford air travel (though, I work in air travel and not everyone can afford it, a lot of non interest finance).

The wealthy however still have business class or first class and they are able to travel in better style. There is still a discrepancy of wealth but it just manifests itself differently in different eras.

So even though more people are travelling, we don't all have the same benefits. The wealthy will always have more benefits and the middle to low income will get the bare minimum. In that sense, the idea of being richer than your ancestors can fall flat a little. Eg, your father may not have been able to go to school as a black man and now you can, However, the school you are going to could be underfunded, be in a crime ridden area, old textbooks, not the same level of funding etc....but you are not going to say that you are better off. You are at the same place just in a different era.

One of my favourite views came from Steven Price. I paraphrase. The rich don't make the economy function. They already have everything they want. You give them more money, they are less likely to go and spend it. The middle to poor class don't have everything however. Give them money and they will spend it. They will keep putting back in to the economy and that will keep it ticking over. The rich will also win because people keep spending in their businesses, therefore it makes sense to increase the minimum wage or the ability to earn.

[Jemisi]

I am not in favour of the version of trickle down that just releases the mega rich. That is offensive.

But I don't agree with the idea that often comes up in this discussion that being poorer than one's neighbours is worse than being poorer than one's ancestors.

It does have an impact upon my envy but it is a hell of a lot better to be poor today than it was to be middle class 100 years ago.

It just is.

The problem here is that it can lead to illogical equivalents across different countries. You are effectively downplaying poor Americans' poverty by comparing to middle class Zimbabweans (as an example). Here's why that is problematic.

For example, it is sometimes difficult to be gay in America, but its better than being gay in Iran, right? The problem is that for suffering American gays, being in Iran is irrelevant because they are in the US, and would never get a visa to immigrate to Iran to begin with. Its an irrelevant comparison. It would not ease their pain at all in America.

For example, its better to cancer in 2020 when we have surgery, chemo, and radiation therapy available vs having cancer in 1500 AD where some priest would just recite holy verses and you'd die in agony. But does that mean that cancer in 2020 is a pleasant experience or not painful in any way? Of course not. Patients in the 1500 are irrelevant to the a patient in 2020.

Some comparisons are less relevant and some are more relevant. But when I am comparing one generation to the next in the same context - ie, Australian poor people or poor people in the West, some of the economic policies that have been in play over those decades matter.

I am not saying that it is ever pleasant to have cancer - what I am saying is that the cancer sufferer today tends to be better off than 50 years ago and that is something to be grateful for. Genuinely. I am thankful for the aircon that I didn't have as a child even though my household today is poorer in terms of your comparisons than my parents' was when I was growing up. But I am still materially better off and I am grateful for that.

So I grew up in an upper middle class wealth bracket but am today in a lower to middle middle class bracket but in quality of life terms my kids are better off than I was even though most of their neighbours are wealthier than they are. That is because of economic growth. The whole is bigger than it was a generation ago.

So by all means continue to advocate for an improvement for the poor, but make sure they are real improvements to the whole at the same time.

[ZIMDOGGY]

The thing that gets me, no matter what Trump does, the 'liberally minded' will criticise every damn time.

Generally conservatives will agree with Trump 70% of the time, even discounting for the fact when they don't agree with Trump, they at least agree with the effort.

But the dems/liberals will never agree with Trump. Someone can't be wrong EVERY time, so that's how you know they and CNN are biased.

Even if Trump tries to get it wrong every time, but some miracle he will get it right through error. Broken clock being right twice a day and all that.
But you'll never hear 'I agree' from a liberal. Centrists does and over time a lot have become Team Trump.

Even when Trump just copies an Obama move, it gets re labelled as racist or wrong. If he flips on a topic, the liberal will disagree both times then criticise the fact he flipped.

Guy can do no right.

But it actually helps Trump because the centre and right see this happen and it shows hypocrisy. I think this is the core point Googly made about Trump and his effect.

For me I like his 'no fucks given' attitude and I estimate he makes the right decision 3/4 of the time. Sometimes I disagree with him, like I'm not a fan how he's still mudslinging dems when he should be focusing on the pandemic and he's given too much weight to some criticism of him that he should have brushed off.

I think attacking Cuomo isn't a great move as Cuomo has at least given him some praise. Just continue to work together.

[Kriterion_BD]

The thing that gets me, no matter what Trump does, the 'liberally minded' will criticise every damn time.

Generally conservatives will agree with Trump 70% of the time, even discounting for the fact when they don't agree with Trump, they at least agree with the effort.

But the dems/liberals will never agree with Trump. Someone can't be wrong EVERY time, so that's how you know they and CNN are biased.

Even if Trump tries to get it wrong every time, but some miracle he will get it right through error. Broken clock being right twice a day and all that.
But you'll never hear 'I agree' from a liberal. Centrists does and over time a lot have become Team Trump.

This is actually not true. Trump has been so destabilizing and unpredictable, that the centrist media like CNN has had very little to agree with him on. However, it has happened. Here is Van Jones praising Trump, pretty much the only time Trump acted Presidential in the first 3.5 years of his term:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPhsSqXHRAs

I remember this somewhat well...almost everyone on CNN praised Trump and was actually more hopeful than surprised the man was learning. Obviously that benefit of the doubt has dissipated considerably 2 years later.

CNN is very much centrist. Centrist News Network. They at least try to cover their bias and ackowledge it.

Question for you is, in 8 years, did Fox ever make a similar claim about Obama? How about when Obama killed Bin Laden? They still couldn't give him credit just because he was a black guy or had a foreign sounding name. If they did, then CNN is at least equivalently biased to Fox.

[Googly]

If you think CNN is centrist you are deeply disturbed. They’ve lost half their viewership because they cannot stop their anti-Trump rants, they are actually helping Trump win the next election. Their most plausible reporter lays his head on the desk and pretends to cry with disbelief and produces handkerchiefs to wipe the tears from his eyes, they’re a joke. They’re not journalists they’re activists.
The very best Democrats you can dredge up to oppose the Trumpster are Biden and Bernie, that tells normal people all they need to know
I’ll bet they’re trying to hatch a plot to get Clinton back in the race because that hair sniffing Biden will have forgotten his name by the end of July.

[Kriterion_BD]

I think I’ve given enough of my political spiel. Truth is subjective these days and you can’t convince conservatives that 1 is greater than 0 if it isn’t in their immediate interest. Some libtards are like that too.

[zimbos_05]

The thing that gets me, no matter what Trump does, the 'liberally minded' will criticise every damn time.

Generally conservatives will agree with Trump 70% of the time, even discounting for the fact when they don't agree with Trump, they at least agree with the effort.

But the dems/liberals will never agree with Trump. Someone can't be wrong EVERY time, so that's how you know they and CNN are biased.

Even if Trump tries to get it wrong every time, but some miracle he will get it right through error. Broken clock being right twice a day and all that.
But you'll never hear 'I agree' from a liberal. Centrists does and over time a lot have become Team Trump.

Even when Trump just copies an Obama move, it gets re labelled as racist or wrong. If he flips on a topic, the liberal will disagree both times then criticise the fact he flipped.

Guy can do no right.

But it actually helps Trump because the centre and right see this happen and it shows hypocrisy. I think this is the core point Googly made about Trump and his effect.

For me I like his 'no fucks given' attitude and I estimate he makes the right decision 3/4 of the time. Sometimes I disagree with him, like I'm not a fan how he's still mudslinging dems when he should be focusing on the pandemic and he's given too much weight to some criticism of him that he should have brushed off.

I think attacking Cuomo isn't a great move as Cuomo has at least given him some praise. Just continue to work together.

I don't always agree with you on a lot of things, but for some reason I feel like you are engaging in a normal discussion and engaging so in a gentleman like manner. It's weird, but refreshing and I am enjoying it.

The problem with Trump for a lot of left is not that they don't want him to succeed, but that Trump often will do the opposite of what the left say or do just because it is the left. It is also a case of him being proven to have lied on many occasions and done things that are not in national interest, but specific interest. For example, the left may say that the virus handling has been terrible yet he will come out and make outlandish statements regarding it. When a journalist does their job and questions him, he just attacks them and labels them fake news. Even when he was given some soft ball questions, he just attacked journalists and this caused social media attacks on those journalists to happen, some of them very personal and death threatening. For me personally, he does not acknowledge when he is wrong or makes a mistake.

If he did that, I would definitely give him benefit of the doubt on certain things. I've always been the type that may not agree with a political viewpoint or party, but if they get it right, then so be it.

The other problem is that Trumps rheotric has been very divisive and alienating. Conservatives will agree and accept because it is their side, their party, it serves them. Like your sport team, you support them no matter what happens or where they are.

Googly shows very similar traits. Failure to acknowledge or accept wrong or responsibility. Kriterion literally posted a video of CNN praising Trump and the very next post ignores that and makes up bs claims about CNN.

I've worked very closely with journalists on both sides of the political aisle. I've seen mistakes on both sides and successes on both sides, but to claim that CNN is outright biased and always false is a big lie in itself, particularly when this ignores everything that FOX does or has done and is excused as being rationale.