The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Z Buck McFate]

Disclaimer: I haven't read posts leading up to this, someone might have said this (or hopefully stated it better).

It's easy to elect different people, especially presidents, for their limited terms- but the programs they create while in office can be all but impossible to dislodge after they are 'voted out,' as a previous post I shared suggests.

Yes, and there's some merit to the point you made. But I'm referring to power. Further enriching the wealthiest people - and I'm talking about the top 10% here - also has lasting consequences that go on long after the elected official who help them has left office. I was reticent to respond because I'm rubbish at regurgitating the facts that have led me to one position or another, and the people who are good at this (in this forum, historically) have pretty much left these kinds of conversations. If money is going to bleed into a counterproductive direction - like, if that's a given that financial resources will necessarily be lost in some direction - I'd choose dead weight programs over further enriching the top 1% any day of the week. Because the top 1% use those resources to perpetuate (and expand) the vicious cycle.

You mentioned some programs that may or may not be dead weight (I haven't researched it) - I don't doubt there are a lot of programs that are - but when the whole system is set up to keep enriching the top 1% wealthiest, programs aren't started or cut according to whether they are effectively doing what they were supposed to do, they're started/cut (almost exclusively the latter) according to whether it will further enrich the top 1%. Assbag Devos is a good example of how wealth gives senseless power: she is completely unqualified for her position, she only got it because she is insanely wealthy, and she's using it to cut programs left and right that were actually beneficial (but they don't benefit the wealthy). This administration is rolling back all sorts of environmental protections, do you know who profits most from that? The corporations who lobby for it.

If the GOP actually had people who focused on cutting the dead weight by virtue of assessing what is or isn't beneficial to everyone in the infrastructure - instead of just lobbyists, behemoth corporations, and rich friends - I'd be open to hearing about it. But this administration in particular has been like the Legion Of Doom in this regard.

Businesses in the private sector, who aren't subsidized by the government, can be 'voted it' in a way by people not giving them money and taking it elsewhere. The idea that the government is more easily controlled by the people than business is incorrect.

Do you know even a single person who does the research on everything they purchase to make sure they're 'voting' for the businesses that are managed ethically and are a credit to a healthy infrastructure rather than being a parasite on the infrastructure (like Walmart is)?

Do you know of any credible sources a person could use to do this research, if they were so inclined and if they began to have the energy/time it would take for such an endeavor?

I know some people who put some effort into it, where/when they have the energy/time to do so. Most people don't begin to think about it. Most people (especially the 14% who live in poverty) barely have the energy/time to stop by the store to pick up diapers and groceries on the way home from work and their energy is spent figuring out where they will be able to afford both - which happens to be the place that is a biggest parasite on the infrastructure.

This notion that it's easier to 'vote' for private business would only be true if there were easy access for everyone to know exactly where to find information about who they are 'voting' for (about the impact of the business on the infrastructure) and enough time/energy to actually investigate it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

However there are certain complications here in what you are saying which are perhaps the most visible in the form of marketing, PR ... and all that Jazz. Therefore since we live in the era where it is impossible to be an expert on everything this entire dynamic may not function properly, since there is simply too much info. Just truly understanding how your Cell phone works is the endeavour that takes at least a decade of focused study. What means that you will eventually just have to take someones word for it. So the problem perhaps isn't that much in controlling the government, us much "big business" and market got out of control. Which were both kinda traditional "safe harbor" for common people. What in the end altogether leaves them basically powerless and that resulted with "Make America great again".

Yes, this. Most people don't begin to account for how much 'knowledge' they are actually passed from other people and just take for granted is 'true'. Most people like to think they have come to their own conclusions through adequate critical thinking and vastly underestimate the extent to which that isn't true. But just to function in this busy society, we really do have to just 'take someone's word for it' far more than we typically begin to realize.

The Knowledge Illusion, by Steven Sloman, is a good read about this. Book review: You Do Not Think Alone.

So putting forth a measured and fully informed 'consumer vote' isn't actually something the average person (especially those living paycheck to paycheck) is capable of on their own.

eta: Okay, at this point I promise to catch up before posting again.

 

[ceecee]

abolish the fed.

Ok. This was last night.

Fed Adds Just Over $90 Billion in Temporary Money to Markets - WSJ

I pay a great deal of attention to what the Fed does. I pay no attention to what they say.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This was in my local news and from what I grasped:


Now that Iran is once again continuing with its nuclear program the small neighboring Kuwait wants to have its own program as the counter. However it plans to do it in combination with the Russians, since the Russians have promised that they will "put a good word for them " in China. So that China will buy much more oil from Kuwait. Thank you USA for everything but some new reality is knocking on the door style.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Iran lawmaker offers $3m to kill Trump and avenge Soleimani

Could be true.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Ok. This was last night.

Fed Adds Just Over $90 Billion in Temporary Money to Markets - WSJ

I pay a great deal of attention to what the Fed does. I pay no attention to what they say.

pay wall, unfortunately.

 

[anticlimatic]

Disclaimer: I haven't read posts leading up to this, someone might have said this (or hopefully stated it better). Yes, and there's some merit to the point you made. But I'm referring to power. Further enriching the wealthiest people - and I'm talking about the top 10% here - also has lasting consequences that go on long after the elected official who help them has left office. I was reticent to respond because I'm rubbish at regurgitating the facts that have led me to one position or another, and the people who are good at this (in this forum, historically) have pretty much left these kinds of conversations. If money is going to bleed into a counterproductive direction - like, if that's a given that financial resources will necessarily be lost in some direction - I'd choose dead weight programs over further enriching the top 1% any day of the week. Because the top 1% use those resources to perpetuate (and expand) the vicious cycle. You mentioned some programs that may or may not be dead weight (I haven't researched it) - I don't doubt there are a lot of programs that are - but when the whole system is set up to keep enriching the top 1% wealthiest, programs aren't started or cut according to whether they are effectively doing what they were supposed to do, they're started/cut (almost exclusively the latter) according to whether it will further enrich the top 1%. Assbag Devos is a good example of how wealth gives senseless power: she is completely unqualified for her position, she only got it because she is insanely wealthy, and she's using it to cut programs left and right that were actually beneficial (but they don't benefit the wealthy). This administration is rolling back all sorts of environmental protections, do you know who profits most from that? The corporations who lobby for it. If the GOP actually had people who focused on cutting the dead weight by virtue of assessing what is or isn't beneficial to everyone in the infrastructure - instead of just lobbyists, behemoth corporations, and rich friends - I'd be open to hearing about it. But this administration in particular has been like the Legion Of Doom in this regard. Do you know even a single person who does the research on everything they purchase to make sure they're 'voting' for the businesses that are managed ethically and are a credit to a healthy infrastructure rather than being a parasite on the infrastructure (like Walmart is)? Do you know of any credible sources a person could use to do this research, if they were so inclined and if they began to have the energy/time it would take for such an endeavor? I know some people who put some effort into it, where/when they have the energy/time to do so. Most people don't begin to think about it. Most people (especially the 14% who live in poverty) barely have the energy/time to stop by the store to pick up diapers and groceries on the way home from work and their energy is spent figuring out where they will be able to afford both - which happens to be the place that is a biggest parasite on the infrastructure. This notion that it's easier to 'vote' for private business would only be true if there were easy access for everyone to know exactly where to find information about who they are 'voting' for (about the impact of the business on the infrastructure) and enough time/energy to actually investigate it.

Very interesting way of looking at "voting" with your dollars. I guess I just assumed a different motive behind the votes in general. Rather than "is the company who makes this an entity I consider evil or holy" I was thinking of it in terms of "is the company who makes this producing a product I want at the price I want to pay for it." In my context, you bet people do their research (is it a good product? Does a competitor make a better or cheaper product?). The flaw with this system is of course lobbying and monopolies, among others, enabled largely by the crony capitalism GOP that everyone mostly hates. In a way they are responsible for this narriative from the left that all rich people are just these do-nothing fat cats that sit on a couch and smoke cigars and laugh at the misery of the poor- a narriative that plays on our worst instincts of envy and jealousy and inadequacy. I would suggest avoiding the very tempting call to journey down that spiritual and psychological path, it's only going to lead to misery. In reality the 1% is constantly changing, as workers and innovators and entrepreneurs have their prosperous years and then slow down:

Access to this page has been denied.

 

[Virtual ghost]

abolish the fed.

As an outside observer I don't really see it just like that. In my book Fed saved you plenty of times with extra cash. However since big business, presidential administrations and most consumers have no real desire to change many of their habit it leaves Fed no option but to cover all these holes. Even if its work is doomed to fail if there are no major economic changes in the country.

 

[ceecee]

As an outside observer I don't really see it just like that. In my book Fed saved you plenty of times with extra cash. However since big business, presidential administrations and most consumers have no real desire to change many of their habit it leaves Fed no option but to cover all these holes. Even if its work is doomed to fail if there are no major economic changes in the country.

Exactly.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Exactly.

I noticed long time ago that the internet is full of "End the fed" but to me that was never the claim that was ultra solid in reasoning. First, modern country can't work without central bank and therefore "reform the fed" would perhaps make more sense. While on the other hand just about everyone is spending plenty of money they don't have on stupid stuff, or they outsource in mass. What makes sure that there is no enough money or that there is a financial disruption. In many ways fed did the only thing it could do but it's impact seem to be fading.

 

[Jaguar]

This asshole makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

 

[ceecee]

I noticed long time ago that the internet is full of "End the fed" but to me that was never the claim that was ultra solid in reasoning. First, modern country can't work without central bank and therefore "reform the fed" would perhaps make more sense. While on the other hand just about everyone is spending plenty of money they don't have on stupid stuff, or they outsource in mass. What makes sure that there is no enough money or that there is a financial disruption. In many ways fed did the only thing it could do but it's impact seem to be fading.

I've honestly never heard a coherent reason as to why they want the Fed abolished or what would come next. The Fed is currently saving the ass of this economy. It's still using this outdated mixed public–private central bank and the US is the only major economy doing it. All other economies are public. Reform can start there.

Weirdly the Center for Economic Policy Research says the same sort of thing and they have concerns about the Trump administration and the House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Trade and Monetary Policy.

A Further Examination of Federal Reserve Reform Proposals | Briefings/Testimony | CEPR

This subcommittee is considering a wide range of proposals that would alter the structure of the Fed. Several are quite useful in increasing openness and accountability. However, the ones which aim to give more control of the Fed in the hands of the banking industry, rather than officials appointed through the democratic process seem at odds with recent trends both in the United States and the rest of the world. It is difficult to understand the effort to privatize the conduct of monetary policy and to turn over control of financial regulation to the industry that is being regulated.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've honestly never heard a coherent reason as to why they want the Fed abolished or what would come next. The Fed is currently saving the ass of this economy. It's still using this outdated mixed public–private central bank and the US is the only major economy doing it. All other economies are public. Reform can start there.

Probably Joos. At least some of the time, anyway.

 

[Maou]

I've honestly never heard a coherent reason as to why they want the Fed abolished or what would come next. The Fed is currently saving the ass of this economy. It's still using this outdated mixed public–private central bank and the US is the only major economy doing it. All other economies are public. Reform can start there.

Weirdly the Center for Economic Policy Research says the same sort of thing and they have concerns about the Trump administration and the House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Trade and Monetary Policy.

A Further Examination of Federal Reserve Reform Proposals | Briefings/Testimony | CEPR

Its unconstitutional, and a politicial loophole, that essentually spends money without raising taxes indefinately. While bankers get all the comissions, and politicians get what they want. Then the General public fits the bill. Aka, your money is not going where it is suppose to.

 

[ceecee]

Its unconstitutional, and a politicial loophole, that essentually spends money without raising taxes indefinately. While bankers get all the comissions, and politicians get what they want. Then the General public fits the bill. Aka, your money is not going where it is suppose to.

Let me guess, taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.

 

[Maou]

Let me guess, taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.

Taxation is theft of you get technical, because the government does not spend it on what you get taxed on. They spend it on what they want, and throw you a bone once in a while. That is unconstitutional. Imagine an America where all the money that gets out into healthcare, is actually spent on healthcare instead of bailing out failing corperate monopolies.

Now I am not as Libertarian as I used to be, and I reslized that its important to contribute. I just wish the seperations and restrictions where there for the money. Abolishing the Fed can fix a lot of efficiency issues, and downsize the government, as well as reduce corruption.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Very interesting way of looking at "voting" with your dollars. I guess I just assumed a different motive behind the votes in general. Rather than "is the company who makes this an entity I consider evil or holy" I was thinking of it in terms of "is the company who makes this producing a product I want at the price I want to pay for it." In my context, you bet people do their research (is it a good product? Does a competitor make a better or cheaper product?).

Yes, this is what the vast majority of people focus on, and this is kinda the extent of what most people have the energy/time to focus on. A person is kind of lucky if they are even able to get this much right.

The flaw with this system is of course lobbying and monopolies, among others, enabled largely by the crony capitalism GOP that everyone mostly hates.

Yeah. As you've said yourself, if there could be more focus on this - we all might get somewhere productive.

In a way they are responsible for this narriative from the left that all rich people are just these do-nothing fat cats that sit on a couch and smoke cigars and laugh at the misery of the poor- a narriative that plays on our worst instincts of envy and jealousy and inadequacy. I would suggest avoiding the very tempting call to journey down that spiritual and psychological path, it's only going to lead to misery. In reality the 1% is constantly changing, as workers and innovators and entrepreneurs have their prosperous years and then slow down:

Just for what it's worth, my thinking (and I'd like to think the vast majority of the left) isn't remotely as black and white as to feel hate for a group of people who fall within the top 1%. It's isn't about "blaming the rich" (especially blaming the 1% - since, as you point out, the targets in that specific criteria are subject to change and it would clearly be stupid to think those targets are only culpable so long as they operate within the 1% parameters), it's about blaming a system that enables the insanely wealthy to use their wealth to squeeze people on the bottom in order to hoard even more wealth. Though there is a tendency to refer to the party most at fault for perpetuating (and expanding) this inequality as "the 1%", I can't think of anyone I know who is simple enough to actually believe it's only the people within that specific parameter who are to blame.

I've seen memes from conservatives making fun of liberals who "blame rich people for their problems" - which belies the extent to which those particular conservatives are willfully misunderstanding (whether it's done consciously or not) the issue to make it easy to mock. The more "jealousy" is brought up as a likely motivation, the clearer it is that the person making accusations of "jealousy" is reverting to petty assumptions in order to discredit a problem they haven't taken the time to understand; it's not about jealousy, it's about a rigged system and wanting things to be more fair for people on the bottom who are being squeezed the hardest.

 

[Jaguar]

Let me guess, taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.

I met some of those crazy people out in Arizona. I also told them to cut the shit and pay their taxes unless they wanted to go to jail for awhile.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yes, this is what the vast majority of people focus on, and this is kinda the extent of what most people have the energy/time to focus on. A person is kind of lucky if they are even able to get this much right. Yeah. As you've said yourself, if there could be more focus on this - we all might get somewhere productive. Just for what it's worth, my thinking (and I'd like to think the vast majority of the left) isn't remotely as black and white as to feel hate for a group of people who fall within the top 1%. It's isn't about "blaming the rich" (especially blaming the 1% - since, as you point out, the targets in that specific criteria are subject to change and it would clearly be stupid to think those targets are only culpable so long as they operate within the 1% parameters), it's about blaming a system that enables the insanely wealthy to use their wealth to squeeze people on the bottom in order to hoard even more wealth. Though there is a tendency to refer to the party most at fault for perpetuating (and expanding) this inequality as "the 1%", I can't think of anyone I know who is simple enough to actually believe it's only the people within that specific parameter who are to blame. I've seen memes from conservatives making fun of liberals who "blame rich people for their problems" - which belies the extent to which those particular conservatives are willfully misunderstanding (whether it's done consciously or not) the issue to make it easy to mock. The more "jealousy" is brought up as a likely motivation, the clearer it is that the person making accusations of "jealousy" is reverting to petty assumptions in order to discredit a problem they haven't taken the time to understand; it's not about jealousy, it's about a rigged system and wanting things to be more fair for people on the bottom who are being squeezed the hardest.

The system is broken, not completely but enough for bad entities to exploit it. These are the entities who desire more than anything to 'rig' it. The crony capitalists, as I mentioned, who wish to artificially set the worth and prices of things then force people to buy them, and their counterpoints- the political left, who want to artificially set the worth and prices of things then force people to buy them. Both are obsessed with power, and trying to steal it. Both are absolutely awful. On one hand you have the sickness, and in the other the "cure" which is the same but worse. Then in the middle you have moderates and the working class who only care about making enough money live a decent a meaningful life. We want to fix cronyism, but we sure as fuck don't want to do it by making broke people and the government the new overlords we are trying to get rid of in the first place.

 

[Jaguar]

Abolishing the Fed can fix a lot of efficiency issues

So you want to create global chaos. Figures. The U.S. doesn't operate in a vacuum. What we do here affects economies around the world and vice versa. You're a kid who has no idea how finance works, nor do you even bother to learn.