When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Thoughts on the 17% of GDP. An interesting way to look at it. Note that he says, “the year after”
I presume that means that there is an increase in Fed revenue the first year
of enactment, but that is pretty meaningless in the long term. Does anyone have contradictory data?
I thought it interesting, the very low amount of US debt held by foreign entities. This contradicts the “China is going to own us” scenario.
I’m not surprised that sources of Fed borrowing is drying up.
The answer to Nat debt is simple in theory, but do more than 10 of our Senators and Congressmen have the fortitude to make it happen.
This is why most 80% of my retirement savings will remain (on average over time) in equities.
Thoughts on the 17% of GDP. An interesting way to look at it. Note that he says, “the year after”
I presume that means that there is an increase in Fed revenue the first year
of enactment, but that is pretty meaningless in the long term. Does anyone have contradictory data?
I thought it interesting, the very low amount of US debt held by foreign entities. This contradicts the “China is going to own us” scenario.
I’m not surprised that sources of Fed borrowing is drying up.
The answer to Nat debt is simple in theory, but do more than 10 of our Senators and Congressmen have the fortitude to make it happen.
This is why most 80% of my retirement savings will remain (on average over time) in equities.
DNM
My view is:
1. The average voter Joe wouldn't make it past Myth #1 before his/her eyes glaze over and the yawn starts. His/her brain hardly fathoms a $30B problem much less quantifying a $130T problem. And frankly they suck at basic checkbook math & their monthly bill paying encompasses paying the minimum balances to stay alive to pay for the wife's escalade in the garage.
2. Until enough of those "average" voters perceives/realizes a personal pain there will be no actions undertaken by our elected officials (of either side) of anything meaningful.
3. The solution IS straightforward: reduce spending & increase revenue. The methods are what's under endless debate. Until you remove money from politics... this will be an endless debate within a political system evolved to kick cans down the road.
4. The solution offered by Mr. Davies assumes growth in order for it to work. Same thing that was the supposed foundation of trickle down economics. What happens when that growth doesn't happen?
Thoughts on the 17% of GDP. An interesting way to look at it.
So, I just now watched the whole video. Disclaimer: it was kind of in the background while I was working on something else, though I did rewind a few time to be sure to pay attention to key points.
For the first two-thirds, where the speaker is just laying out facts and historical data, absolutely none of that is at all surprising. It aligns well with what some economists have been saying for decades, and completely disagrees with what some other economists have been saying for years. Which is precisely what you'd expect of data pertaining to a politically-contentious topic.
But there's a problem, and it's one which I suspect that anyone who paid close attention to that presentation will tend to overlook:
Facts don't matter.
We are transitioning into a post-truth society. And the people who have the greatest need to pay attention to the lessons above are among the ones who have already successfully completed the process of transitioning from a fact-based reality to a feelings-based reality.
Standing up and saying things like "Tax the rich!" or "Corporations need to pay their fare share!" might not have any basis in reality, but it makes certain people feed good. And that's what gets politicians elected into office, so that they can then exploit their political power for personal enrichment.
A year ago, white liberals were bemoaning that "Republicans are trying to prevent black people from voting!"
Now that those black people have gone out and elected a black Republican to state office, the white liberals are truly bending my mind. Such as Helen Carter, who has decided that black people just shouldn't be allowed to vote, as "sometimes you have to do what's good for them, even if they don't understand why."
My opinion: it's not about race. Or racism.
It used to be, for sure. But nowadays, "racism" is really starting to sound like a dog-whistle to me.
The march of time being what it is, I have to assume that liberal-aligned voters and liberal-leaning opinion columnists are eventually going to reach a point where they can't can't ignore the hypocrisy anymore.
What I look forward to seeing is whether they try to pin that on Republicans somehow. Electoral politics is, after all, a truly zero-sum game.
Now that those black people have gone out and elected a black Republican to state office, the white liberals are truly bending my mind. Such as Helen Carter, who has decided that black people just shouldn't be allowed to vote, as "sometimes you have to do what's good for them, even if they don't understand why."
I did some googling and can't find any source for this quote nor the person to whom you have attributed it, but I'm in Australia so probably getting skewed results. Can you elaborate? Is this a person of significance or power?
I did some googling and can't find any source for this quote nor the person to whom you have attributed it, but I'm in Australia so probably getting skewed results. Can you elaborate? Is this a person of significance or power?
Helen Carter is not a person of significance or power. She's just a white American liberal, who seems to be representative of the group as a whole, albeit slightly less polished in her delivery.
Here is the message (since deleted) which thrust her into the public eye:
What I find really interesting about this woman is that she seems to be the alt-left version of Braineack. She's so angry and unhinged that she's forgotten to disguise her rhetoric in the calm, soothing words typical of the liberal movement. And her opinions are totally firewalled against the absurd extreme of the party platform to which she seems to claim allegiance.
My gut feeling is that this presents us with a window into the mindset of the hard-liberal cult in the US as a whole. This one just happened to violate the first rule of Fight Club.
My gut feeling is that this presents us with a window into the mindset of the hard-liberal cult in the US as a whole. This one just happened to violate the first rule of Fight Club.
My gut feeling is that it presents us with a window into the mindset of one Twitter troll.
Now, forget about whether the whole "1% vs. 99%" story is true or not. Assume, for the purposes of this post, that it is. Because what I'm puzzling over is the logic behind the argument on the bumper sticker from the point of view of someone who is convinced of its fundamental truth.
Does not owner of this car not realize that the 99% are consistently electing the 1% to major offices?
Think about the top names in the Democrat party today. Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris. Elizabeth Warren. Joe Biden. Nancy Pelosi. Hillary Clinton... All of them are in (or very near) the top 1% of Americans by net worth.
And these are people who have spent their whole careers in politics. They're not job-creators, they're literally the stereotypical description of the fabled 1%. Folks who got rich from playing politics.
The perception of reality is uncoupled from reality. And people who claim to detest the so-called "1%" keep voting them into office.
0
