Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

The pendulum has always swung slowly from right to left for decades because the wealthiest 5% will always be outnumbered by the less than wealthiest 95%, and therefore a wealth redistribution message will always naturally resonate. When it fails to make people better off then either there is introspection, or the wealth redistribution rhetoric ramps up. If the latter happens then at some point, the system collapses because you eventually run out of people's money. What happens there is anyone's guess.

Another reason that Socialism resonates is because the Left took over the American education system a long time ago. The whitewashing of the mass murders of Communist regimes and the widespread characterization of Hitler as "right wing" when he was actually a big government Socialist is a perfect example of how successful this indoctrination strategy has been. I could admire its sickening brilliance were it not for the fact that it means misery for society.

[Hannibal]

I think you have utopias on the left and on the right. The other day you said politics should get out of money. IOW, if I'm not mistaken, you accept no form of oversight over the financial-services sector as legitimate, which is an equally fantastic utopia. I'm not one to praise regulation as it is today, but I've seen economies where there's no effective oversight. Be careful what you wish for, basically.

I'm open to more regulation than you might think, when there are natural monopolies, for example and other externalities that the market can't handle. But the starting point for this discussion has to be realizing how much regulation you already have. Many "free market" failures are actually government failures. Or, rather, they are the government setting up a great big moral hazard that then gets exploited. The housing bubble is one example. The California power crisis is another great example. It's like if I send you to Vegas and promise you that I will cover your losses. I'm stupid if I then get mad at you for being "greedy" and making big bets. The solution is for me to tell you that you are on your own, not for me to come up with more ways to regulate and limit your "greed".

With that said, regulating what banks can do isn't offensively bad to me. I am open to it and that issue is low on my priority list. But most of government today has nothing to do with managing externalities and traditional market failures, and has more to do with redistributive "fairness" and providing goods and services that people have decided are essential rights and, therefore, must be provided at any cost. Also, I think that the focus on Wall Street is part of building a myth that a small minority of rich people have a massive cash reserve just there for the taking that will solve all of our budget problems.

[hack]

It die a horrible a death when middle class taxes skyrocket. And they will.

Meanwhile, your assertion that we're creeping further left in economic policies is a bit at odds with the dominance of Rs in every level of government other than the Executive.

Fukuyama did have it mostly right. Western liberalism in the best sense won. The market and liberty. I suppose Islam as a political ideology is more or less diametrically opposed to this, but that's also why Islamic countries are total shit economies entirely dependent on geologic happenstance. But that's another discussion.

When we stop embracing the entrepreneur and those who add value to this society, we're done. We're not ready for that, thank god.

Who stopped embracing them? Not us! The tech and digital media sectors are proof of that. America is where innovation lives and there don't appear to be any threats to that status. The problem is that we are also embracing those who buy their outcomes in Washington. I think if we stopped doing that we'd have more entrepreneurs by removing options that don't entail the proper risk-reward calculations required in a healthy capitalist system.

[iam416]

I'm open to more regulation than you might think, but the starting point for this discussion has to be realizing how much regulation you already have

This. A thousand times over.

There was a reasonably good piece on housing and income inequality the other day. It wasn't overly in-depth, but it hit its points nicely. A couple points I found interesting were that income inequality is far more prevalent in coastal urban areas with a massive housing market buy-in. That's obvious, but it also helped me to re-ground myself and understand a little why people in NY or SF or LA are more up in arms about income inequality -- they see it way more than I do. Conversely, midwestern cities and suburbs are way less "unequal". Housing is accessible.

The other interesting thing is the role of regulation on housing markets. Every regulation that makes it more difficult to build homes reduces supply and raises price. There's no getting around that, not even for Bernie Sanders. Areas where there are huge housing costs also tend to have much higher regulation making it harder to add to the supply and potentially decrease price. The progressive solution in, e.g., California, has been to require developers that develop a certain number of units to sell X% of those units at below market value to low income folks. That rainbows and unicorns bullshit is met with an entirely predictable response -- they stop short of the threshold number so they don't lose money. So, while California law may have added 800 low income units to the supply, it's estimated those regulations have taken 17,000 units out of the supply. High prices.

So when, e.g., you're considering income inequality and you notice the obvious and hugely correlated relationship to housing, one ought to consider regulations that are existence and their impact as well as, you know, entirely predictable market behavior.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Who stopped embracing them? Not us! The tech and digital media sectors are proof of that. America is where innovation lives and there don't appear to be any threats to that status. The problem is that we are also embracing those who buy their outcomes in Washington. I think if we stopped doing that we'd have more entrepreneurs by removing options that don't entail the proper risk-reward calculations required in a healthy capitalist system.

This +1000. If anyone is helping to kill innovation in America, the massive corporations who buy votes in Washington have to be at the top of the list. People like Hillary and Rubio are more to blame for that than either Trump or Sanders

[hack]

IMO the starting point is realizing that all organizations and systems are imperfect. Churchill. Democracy is the worst but show me something better. Same with regulation. Argue about how to make it better, but what we've got is so much better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[iam416]

America is where innovation lives and there don't appear to be any threats to that status.

I guess you and I have different views of what a Sanders world would do to entrepreneurship and innovation.

The problem is that we are also embracing those who buy their outcomes in Washington. I think if we stopped doing that we'd have more entrepreneurs by removing options that don't entail the proper risk-reward calculations required in a healthy capitalist system.

I'll need an actual explanation on this. I'm not sure what you're referring to in tying political contributions to entrepreneurship. I understand that the massive government regulatory scheme for some industries is a huge barrier to entry for smaller companies. I get that. I rather doubt you're being critical of that, though.

Who stopped embracing them? Not us! The tech and digital media sectors are proof of that

Entrepreneurs are quintessential capitalists. The entrepreneurial/start up process is beautifully American. And, I might add, a number of these folks are in partnership with state universities or Federal agencies. A wonderful private-public partnership where the private actor risks a ton to get rich and, at the same time, add an incremental benefit to society. It's a great story.

What do the Ds choose to focus on when it comes to capitalism? WALL STREET! Evil, evil WALL STREET. Billionaires! The money lenders.

Sanders can't really talk about entrepreneurs because "fair" is his hilarious buzzword. And if anyone watched what they went through to make their money then the notion that their money wasn't "fairly" made or that they should pay 75% (fucking seriously?) of that as their "fair" share wouldn't fly.

It's much easier to tar Gordan Gecko as deserving of a governmental fleecing.

[iam416]

Same with regulation. Argue about how to make it better, but what we've got is so much better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I doubt anyone would disagree with this, but to be equally milquetoast, you can't talk about improving regulations if deregulation is off the table.

[Hannibal]

It die a horrible a death when middle class taxes skyrocket. And they will.

Maybe, maybe not. Amnesty for illegal immigrants would make it possible for Bernie to win a second term pretty much regardless of circumstance. That is why solving the immigration issue is paramount. That is also why immigration is, at its core, an economic issue and not a social one.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The really big corporations in America aren't interested in innovation. Eventually all companies reach a point where they seek to protect what they have rather than take risks, an innately conservative strategy. And they can afford to buy candidates to ensure that threats to their market dominance are nipped in the bud

[iam416]

Maybe, maybe not. Amnesty for illegal immigrants would make it possible for Bernie to win a second term pretty much regardless of circumstance. That is why solving the immigration issue is paramount. That is also why immigration is, at its core, an economic issue and not a social one.

I'm not sure about that. I'd have to see what amnesty does for voting in the states that matter. Yeah, Bernie would get a big bump in California, but Ohio? Virginia? Maybe Florida, I guess--but even then, small, I'd think.

It is absolutely an economic issue.

[froot loops]

A Sanders world would not be all that much different. The voters aren't electing a dictator.

[Hannibal]

Who stopped embracing them? Not us! The tech and digital media sectors are proof of that. America is where innovation lives and there don't appear to be any threats to that status.

This energy that you speak of is the fruit of the robust, mostly laissez-faire American economy that existed in the 80s and 90s. Without this environment there is probably no Google or amazon (at least not in America), and there is no fracking boom that causes gasoline to collapse to under $2/gallon.

[iam416]

The really big corporations in America aren't interested in innovation. Eventually all companies reach a point where they seek to protect what they have rather than take risks, an innately conservative strategy. And they can afford to buy candidates to ensure that threats to their market dominance are nipped in the bud

I need something more than Sanders stump speech.

They way you typically keep people out of the market is through regulatory schemes. Drug discovery, e.g., is very difficult because clinical studies are extremely expensive as is navigating the FDA. I highly doubt you're anti-FDA. In fact, I highly doubt your anti any regulation that involves Federal Govt oversight of an industry. The unintended consequence (or perhaps intended if this evil multinational corporations want more regulation so as to make market entry harder) is increased barriers to entry.

If you have another explanation other than some ethereal political speech, I'd be very interested in hearing it and learning about it.

[Wild Hoss]

. Maybe it's a side effect of being too prosperous for too long and we need a good old prolonged depression for people to realize that food on the shelves and the lights coming on when you hit the switch are not things to be taken for granted.

Wow.