Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 119: This Place is a Dump

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

And I've been told by jackasses both on this board and elsewhere that I'm an idiot with no clue what I'm talking about when I say "trickle-down" economics doesn't work
---

Nothing more pathetic than a Reaganite who fell face first into the koolaid. What an awful president.
---

Corrik you are literally advocating for death panels.

Also fentanyl is far more profitable than something like an Epi pen. Stopping the supply of that will drive other drug prices up, not down. A drug companies more profitable drugs often subsidize the less profitable (but medically important) drugs.

We obviously need to do something about the opioid epidemic, but you seem to have a misunderstanding about what controls drug prices.
---

Trump retweeting stories based on leaked intelligence confirms what was already pretty obvious - he only cares about leaks that make him look bad, not about national security:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345689-trump-on-north-korea-we-must-be-tough-decisive
---

Trickle Down Economics: The idea that the best way to help poor people is to make rich people more rich so they'll feel more generous and maybe help the poor.
---

(Also by retweeting it he's implicitly confirming the story)
---

Why do I get the feeling that the 'anonymous sources' was Trump himself?

I mean I'm probably wrong, but this is a world where I might not be.
---

Ashethan posted...

Why do I get the feeling that the 'anonymous sources' was Trump himself?

I mean I'm probably wrong, but this is a world where I might not be.

Yeah I was about to say I wouldn't be surprised if he ordered the leak, or was directly responsible.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

The belief that one's moral position and ultimate worth to society is tied to their income is one of the biggest bullshit lies that people fall for.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

I mean, this is just illustrating a move to a purer form of capitalism. I don't think it shows how the economy is "fucked up," more just how it's changing (I would argue for the better).
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

I mean, this is just illustrating a move to a purer form of capitalism. I don't think it shows how the economy is "fucked up," more just how it's changing (I would argue for the better).

Please explain how an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an improvement, without explicitly or implicitly referring to your own economic station.
---

Fun fact, most if not all of the variation of the gini coefficient between the 60s and today can be explained by assortative mating

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Its not so much republican or democratic economic policies, it seems a lot of it is based on who we are choosing to surround ourselves with, and thus marry.

Dont get me wrong, trickle down economics dont work, but making tax rates at 75% brackets or what not don't do much either it seems.

"Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.

Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, %u201Cassortative mating is important for income inequality.%u201D"
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

this is just illustrating a move to a purer form of capitalism. I don't think it shows how the economy is "f***ed up,"

Those two sentences are incompatible
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

I mean, this is just illustrating a move to a purer form of capitalism. I don't think it shows how the economy is "fucked up," more just how it's changing (I would argue for the better).

Please explain how an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an improvement, without explicitly or implicitly referring to your own economic station.

Capitalism rewards investment, ie people with money to invest. To me, it's thrilling to live in a country where a poor person can not only escape poverty, but actually become exceedingly wealthy and give back. Not that this escape should be an easy process, but that's a wonderful motivator to have in a free society.
---

Or we could have a society where you don't have to give back because everyone can make a living wage
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Please explain how an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an improvement, without explicitly or implicitly referring to your own economic station.

Well if you go by Stuart Varney, it's because poor people have stuff like refrigerators, microwaves, air condition and cable tv. So they're not really poor! They don't actually need help!
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Capitalism rewards investment, ie people with money to invest. To me, it's thrilling to live in a country where a poor person can not only escape poverty, but actually become exceedingly wealthy and give back. Not that this escape should be an easy process, but that's a wonderful motivator to have in a free society.

And people couldn't do this before 1980?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Would you like a visual explanation of just how much Ronald Reagan fucked up the U.S. economy? Here you go!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_r=0

I mean, this is just illustrating a move to a purer form of capitalism. I don't think it shows how the economy is "fucked up," more just how it's changing (I would argue for the better).

Please explain how an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an improvement, without explicitly or implicitly referring to your own economic station.

Capitalism rewards investment, ie people with money to invest. To me, it's thrilling to live in a country where a poor person can not only escape poverty, but actually become exceedingly wealthy and give back. Not that this escape should be an easy process, but that's a wonderful motivator to have in a free society.

Wat


If you say "this is a feature, not a bug" you can't then logically argue that "it's great when the feature is occasionally suspended!"
---

yeah man, can't make escaping poverty too easy, otherwise everyone will be doing it!
---

He's saying that if you aren't "motivated" to do what's necessary to escape poverty, you deserve to be poor.

It's a common conservative inhumane belief
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The belief that one's moral position and ultimate worth to society is tied to their income is one of the biggest bullshit lies that people fall for.

---

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed
---

Yeah, I'm more worried about some stupid response from Trump than anything out of NK in regards to that.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

Those things occurring are also pretty solidly not good.
---

You can't invest if you don't have money to invest.

And furthermore, that shouldn't be a requirement for getting out of poverty in the first place.

For all Republicans talk about how good hard work should get people out of poverty, they seem to do their best to avoid actually rewarding good hard work by paying people subliving wages.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

Those things occurring are also pretty solidly not good.

Agreed! I'm just saying we should be realistic in our apocalyptic doomsday predictions.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

Those things occurring are also pretty solidly not good.

America first, man! Who cares about our key allies or a state that didn't vote along Republican lines? Once they're gone that'll be a few thousand less liberals clogging the streets! What has any Asian territory ever done for us?
---

Ironically, Trump disbelieving US Intel on this because they were wrong about WMDs that one time before and thus in his mind are never credible again might be the best we could hope for
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The belief that one's moral position and ultimate worth to society is tied to their income is one of the biggest bullshit lies that people fall for.

I always find it funny that people who believe that, also really really hate George Soros.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Shin_Megami_Tensei_The_First.jpg
---

Metal_DK posted...

Fun fact, most if not all of the variation of the gini coefficient between the 60s and today can be explained by assortative mating

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Its not so much republican or democratic economic policies, it seems a lot of it is based on who we are choosing to surround ourselves with, and thus marry.

Dont get me wrong, trickle down economics dont work, but making tax rates at 75% brackets or what not don't do much either it seems.

"Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.

Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, %u201Cassortative mating is important for income inequality.%u201D"

I'm not sure you can compare education levels between couples today to a time when women had far less educational opportunity. Like, tons of women in 1960 just graduated high school and became housewives, so of course people didn't tend to marry someone with a similar education level. Now I'm not implying that this is something we should go back to but it certainly could affect assortative mating rates.

Another factor is that people tend to marry later in life these days, when their social circles are more limited and therefore rigidly stratified. In the past lots of people got married shortly after high school, to someone they met in high school. Just about everyone goes to high school and super-fancy private schools aside, that's a place where all kinds of people of different economic statuses are mixed together on a more or less equal social footing. Much more so than later in life where many of the people you meet are determined by your career, where everyone is much closer in terms of education and economic status. Like a brain surgeon is more likely to meet and socialize with other brain surgeons than with bus drivers, but they probably went to high school together. So if you're getting married at a younger age, it's more likely to be mixed in terms of education level.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

This isn't actually true

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/north-korea-icbm-test-proves-strike-range-170729042200736.html

Their second icbm test was capable of reaching the entire US aside from florida
---

https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house

I'm not sure I actually buy this one, but the thought of it is killing me
---

Eddv posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

This isn't actually true

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/north-korea-icbm-test-proves-strike-range-170729042200736.html

Their second icbm test was capable of reaching the entire US aside from florida

I think he means that the missiles would likely be detected and shot down before it would reach mainland US.
---

Eddv posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

US intel has determined that North Korea has legitimate nuclear missile capabilities

I'm glad we have a wise, experienced leader to oh my god we're doomed

Realistically, North Korea has no chance of making a missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. So it's South Korea and/or Japan that are doomed. Possibly Hawaii.

This isn't actually true

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/north-korea-icbm-test-proves-strike-range-170729042200736.html

Their second icbm test was capable of reaching the entire US aside from florida

Well shit, I guess we are fucked.
---

Eddv posted...

Their second icbm test was capable of reaching the entire US aside from florida

Hell yeah, RIP guys I'll carry on in your memory.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Eddv posted...

Their second icbm test was capable of reaching the entire US aside from florida

Hell yeah, RIP guys I'll carry on in your memory.

The one situation in which being Florida Man would actually be an advantage.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

I'm not sure you can compare education levels between couples today to a time when women had far less educational opportunity. Like, tons of women in 1960 just graduated high school and became housewives, so of course people didn't tend to marry someone with a similar education level. Now I'm not implying that this is something we should go back to but it certainly could affect assortative mating rates.

I dont think that discredits the study at all. It shows that when you double the workforce, expect salaries to be negotiated downward amongst the jobs that everyone is going after, or at the very best flatlined. This will cause the rich to be richer in relative terms, upping the coefficient.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

metroid composite posted...

Interesting article about the effect of drawing out of the TPP on certain parts of rural america:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459

(Note, I am overall against the TPP, but yeah, this is a pretty significant downside to drawing out).

As I understand it the US agriculture industry would have won big from the TPP. Trump straight up screwed them.

TPP would've been good for a lot of people. Heck, I would argue that the vast majority of opposition to the TPP was ill-founded; it became a cause celebre, almost a status symbol and a belief more than a justified position. But it is too late now.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik you are literally advocating for death panels.

Also fentanyl is far more profitable than something like an Epi pen. Stopping the supply of that will drive other drug prices up, not down. A drug companies more profitable drugs often subsidize the less profitable (but medically important) drugs.

We obviously need to do something about the opioid epidemic, but you seem to have a misunderstanding about what controls drug prices.

I don't think your response is valid to my statement as it talks about things I never asserted and deems the non-assertion as a misunderstanding.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.
---

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

but i thought All Lives Matter
---

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

Does it reveal his cosmopolitan bias to an astounding degree?
---

Modern technology likely plays a role in assorted pairing as well. Dating apps/websites lets you see more people that you would normally have not met. This can cause people to be pickier. This causes things like very attractive people or very job oriented people to be paired together.

For example, I rarely choose to match with people without at least an undergrad degree and even among people with degrees art majors are also matched less frequently. Obviously I’m missing out on potentially good matches, but if I’m not picky then I’ll be writing to/swiping people all day.
---

Oh god, I have to imagine SF is high up in the target list if NK can actually hit the mainland

If I die, know that I blame Trump personally! Not sure whether or not that would be fair, but if I do then fuck him anyway!

dowolf posted...

TPP would've been good for a lot of people. Heck, I would argue that the vast majority of opposition to the TPP was ill-founded; it became a cause celebre, almost a status symbol and a belief more than a justified position. But it is too late now.

Yeah. I was opposed originally based primarily on my dislike of US IP law, but the more I looked into it the more the opposition arguments fell apart (not that you couldn't make an honest case against it, but most of the features that opponents insisted were uniquely terrible were complaints you could level against any trade agreement and usually had a good reason for being included, even if you may not like the tradeoffs). Even with the IP law stuff (life + 70 years is ridiculous imo) it makes sense to enforce a unified standard across a trading bloc unless you want to give your country a relative disadvantage.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

Does it reveal his cosmopolitan bias to an astounding degree?

Hmm... Should I respond by attacking the false equivalences here, or should I opine that we shouldn't prioritize the lives of people who put commas after conjoining conjunctions.

Choices...
---

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

Are you living in a world where every time somebody overdoses, people have to choose between saving them or a child
---

dowolf posted...

MrGreenonion posted...

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

Does it reveal his cosmopolitan bias to an astounding degree?

Hmm... Should I respond by attacking the false equivalences here, or should I opine that we shouldn't prioritize the lives of people who put commas after conjoining conjunctions.

Choices...

Either is quite a bad argument, so it hardly matters.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik, ever the utilitarian.

Should we also kill off the disabled, the elderly, and anyone who can't score at least a 250 in bowling at the age of 18?

I feel safe saying a childs life is more worthy of being saved than a drug addicts who overdosed on a drug. And, it is laughable you think it is even debatable.

Are you living in a world where every time somebody overdoses, people have to choose between saving them or a child

I live in a world whete ypu appropriate funds which go to certain services. Appropriating funds to repeatedly save drug addicts lives temporarily is a bad appropriation of funds that could have gone somewhere else to benefit those in society who actually deserve the funds more.
---