• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Berneconomy[W:59]

Re: Berneconomy

Bernie Sanders summed up his understanding of the American economy this way:

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."

Just how spray deodorant money would be diverted to hungry children, short of nationalizing the companies, isn't clear. But we know what Sanders is saying, and it is this:

"I have no idea how things work. Let me run everything."

In the Latin American paradises Bernie so admires it's done this way:

  1. Deodorant makers are nationalized and converted into one brand, which quickly becomes known for its poor quality. Then it becomes hard to get.
  2. Foreign brands of deodorants show up in the black market.
  3. Dogs are trained to sniff out foreign brands, and deodorant dissidents are denounced, caught, and imprisoned.

Rinse and repeat using any commodity you like. In Venezuela they repeatedly run out of toilet paper. The whole country. You could make a fortune selling it in Caracas.

The situations in Cuba, Venezuela, and the USSR being what they are Bernie looks to find a new example of socialism. Perhaps Denmark or Norway. But then they are increasingly xenophobic, and they still have a lot of capitalism. And they are soooooo white.

from James Lileks, National Review

Gee, another out of touch leftist politician who probably hasn't done his own shopping for a very, very long time. :roll:
 
Re: Berneconomy

Bernie Sanders summed up his understanding of the American economy this way:

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."

Just how spray deodorant money would be diverted to hungry children, short of nationalizing the companies, isn't clear.

Maybe Sanders' opinions would be a little less foggy to you if you actually bothered to read (and reference) the interview, rather than a couple of cherry-picked soundbytes from a National Review hatchet job? Just a thought.

A difficult task, I know - the interview was only done 11 months ago :roll:

10 questions with Bernie Sanders | CNBC

HARWOOD: Have you seen some of the quotations from people on Wall Street, people in business? Some have even likened the progressive Democratic crusade to Hitler's Germany hunting down the Jews.

SANDERS: It's sick. And I think these people are so greedy, they're so out of touch with reality, that they can come up and say that. They think they own the world.

What a disgusting remark. I'm sorry to have to tell them, they live in the United States, they benefit from the United States, we have kids who are hungry in this country. We have people who are working two, three, four jobs, who can't send their kids to college. You know what? Sorry, you're all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes. If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.

HARWOOD: When you think about 90 percent, you don't think that's obviously too high?

SANDERS: No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know? That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, "You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share."

HARWOOD: In the latter part of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan came along and there was a big pivot in our politics. It revolves around the idea that we need less government and more market forces. Do you think that basic pivot was wrong?

SANDERS: Let me answer it this way, John. I think there is obviously an enormously important role for the free market and for entrepreneurial activity. I worry how free the free market is. In sector after sector, you have a small number of companies controlling a large part of the sector.

Certainly, in my view, the major banks should be broken up. We want entrepreneurs and private businesses to create wealth. No problem. But what we're living in now is what I would call—what Pope Francis calls—a casino-type capitalism, which is out of control, where the people on top have lost any sense of responsibility for the rest of the society. Where it's just "It's all me. It's all me. And to heck with anybody else." I want to see the result of that wealth go to the broad middle class of this country and not just to a handful of people.

HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?

SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you're broke. How do you retire if you have less than $10,000, and you don't have much in the way of Social Security?​
 
Re: Berneconomy

And I might be OK with it if EVERYBODY got a haircut to do it.

But the ownership/investment class has pocketed all the "raises" for forty years now.

And nobody told anybody here that it was gonna take fifty to a hundred years for the new consumers to start pushing our wages up again.

The economic planning you seem to propose would reduce efficiency of the economy considerably. One ceetainly want to give thought to how we could increase the level of income from employment. Most measures that popularly come to mind do not work. The issues want more complicated solutions.

I agree that it would probably be good to equalize wealth at birth, if this were structured correctly. The thing is that at present technology and social systems could not do this without probably doing more damage than we could afford.
 
Re: Berneconomy

Yes, we've all gone egocentrically insane. We always think we're right. We think we can do anything we want.
I don't always think I am right, and know that in different knowledge bases there will always be people who know more than I. The problem with both of the majority parties is they are populated by truly stupid people who don't know how truly stupid they are, and in their arrogance think that they know best how to run our lives. I don't care how you, the stranger down the street, or anyone else runs their lives as long as they do not intentionally seek to harm others, you know best what your needs and wants are as I know best what mine are and I seek the minimum in interference. Both parties seek maximum interference and we should seek and cheer the political death of both.
 
Re: Berneconomy

I agree that it would probably be good to equalize wealth at birth, if this were structured correctly. The thing is that at present technology and social systems could not do this without probably doing more damage than we could afford.

Probably not feasible, no, but I'm sure some things could be done to reduce inter-generational privileges and disadvantages. Taxing inheritances and gifts from friends and family at the same rates as regular income, for example (maybe with a higher exemption levels, especially for inheritance). Capital gains, too. Add a higher top tier of marginal tax rates - income above 1 million per year, for example - and have perhaps a 60% tax rate on it.

Sanders' remarks about many rich people being out of touch with the rest of society are interesting too. Again there's probably no complete answer, but one idea might be encouraging private schools to have a quota, a fifth or a quarter say of their students from poorer backgrounds. 'Scholarships' as it were, paid for mostly by the government from all these extra taxes. Not only would it help the poorer kids out, it might help broaden the worldview of some of the rich kids too.

One place to start to reducing intergenerational disadvantages would be a) making sexual education and contraceptives more readily available and b) reducing public support for each successive child beyond the first or second, rather than incentivizing large unsupportable families.
 
Re: Berneconomy

Probably not feasible, no, but I'm sure some things could be done to reduce inter-generational privileges and disadvantages. Taxing inheritances and gifts from friends and family at the same rates as regular income, for example (maybe with a higher exemption levels, especially for inheritance). Capital gains, too. Add a higher top tier of marginal tax rates - income above 1 million per year, for example - and have perhaps a 60% tax rate on it.

Sanders' remarks about many rich people being out of touch with the rest of society are interesting too. Again there's probably no complete answer, but one idea might be encouraging private schools to have a quota, a fifth or a quarter say of their students from poorer backgrounds. 'Scholarships' as it were, paid for mostly by the government from all these extra taxes. Not only would it help the poorer kids out, it might help broaden the worldview of some of the rich kids too.

One place to start to reducing intergenerational disadvantages would be a) making sexual education and contraceptives more readily available and b) reducing public support for each successive child beyond the first or second, rather than incentivizing large unsupportable families.

While the economic measures you mention have all been variously tried and in most cases been rolled back or given upafter the countries saw how damaging they were, more education is really a good idea. How to deliver it is another matter.
 
Re: Berneconomy

The economic planning you seem to propose would reduce efficiency of the economy considerably. One ceetainly want to give thought to how we could increase the level of income from employment. Most measures that popularly come to mind do not work. The issues want more complicated solutions.

I agree that it would probably be good to equalize wealth at birth, if this were structured correctly. The thing is that at present technology and social systems could not do this without probably doing more damage than we could afford.

There are a number of things that can be done if we just stopped acting like capitalism is some kind of natural law.

Its a construct.

And it is concentrative in nature. The more capital you have the more you can get. And it has concentrated now to an extent that banks are too big to fail, money can be withheld from the economy to a degree it amounts to extortion, speculators can manipulate supply and demand curves, etc.

Its not our fathers' capitalism anymore. The world "filling up" and technology have changed the game so fundamentally that I believe an overhaul is in order. A four hundred year service, as it were.

But wealth concentration would make that almost impossible. The tantrums thrown would be disastrous. Because we have allowed money to pile up in few enough hands we can be disciplined for trying to address excesses in our made up economic system.
 
Re: Berneconomy

Maybe Sanders' opinions would be a little less foggy to you if you actually bothered to read (and reference) the interview, rather than a couple of cherry-picked soundbytes from a National Review hatchet job? Just a thought.

A difficult task, I know - the interview was only done 11 months ago :roll:

10 questions with Bernie Sanders | CNBC

HARWOOD: Have you seen some of the quotations from people on Wall Street, people in business? Some have even likened the progressive Democratic crusade to Hitler's Germany hunting down the Jews.

SANDERS: It's sick. And I think these people are so greedy, they're so out of touch with reality, that they can come up and say that. They think they own the world.

What a disgusting remark. I'm sorry to have to tell them, they live in the United States, they benefit from the United States, we have kids who are hungry in this country. We have people who are working two, three, four jobs, who can't send their kids to college. You know what? Sorry, you're all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes. If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.

HARWOOD: When you think about 90 percent, you don't think that's obviously too high?

SANDERS: No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know? That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, "You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share."

HARWOOD: In the latter part of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan came along and there was a big pivot in our politics. It revolves around the idea that we need less government and more market forces. Do you think that basic pivot was wrong?

SANDERS: Let me answer it this way, John. I think there is obviously an enormously important role for the free market and for entrepreneurial activity. I worry how free the free market is. In sector after sector, you have a small number of companies controlling a large part of the sector.

Certainly, in my view, the major banks should be broken up. We want entrepreneurs and private businesses to create wealth. No problem. But what we're living in now is what I would call—what Pope Francis calls—a casino-type capitalism, which is out of control, where the people on top have lost any sense of responsibility for the rest of the society. Where it's just "It's all me. It's all me. And to heck with anybody else." I want to see the result of that wealth go to the broad middle class of this country and not just to a handful of people.

HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?

SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you're broke. How do you retire if you have less than $10,000, and you don't have much in the way of Social Security?​

I'm sorry, but none of that improves my impression of Sanders. Pretty much the opposite, in fact. He is full of disrespect and hatred for his fellow Americans, who he accuses of being greedy and evil. He is full of complaints about the American economy, which he clearly doesn't understand, and has no practical solutions. God help us if a kook like this becomes President.
 
Re: Berneconomy

There are a number of things that can be done if we just stopped acting like capitalism is some kind of natural law.

Its a construct.

And it is concentrative in nature. The more capital you have the more you can get. And it has concentrated now to an extent that banks are too big to fail, money can be withheld from the economy to a degree it amounts to extortion, speculators can manipulate supply and demand curves, etc.

Its not our fathers' capitalism anymore. The world "filling up" and technology have changed the game so fundamentally that I believe an overhaul is in order. A four hundred year service, as it were.

But wealth concentration would make that almost impossible. The tantrums thrown would be disastrous. Because we have allowed money to pile up in few enough hands we can be disciplined for trying to address excesses in our made up economic system.

It isn't that economics is anything other than application of a set of simplified behavioral assumptions that seem to work quite well in broad brush analysis of economies. You want to know, what to expect, if this, that or the other thing is fiddled with, you apply the simple economic model.

If you want more specific prognosis, you increase complexity. If, for instance, you want to know, what will happen, if you increase the cost of holding wealth, you pop it into the simple model and watch the country hemorrhage cash.
 
Re: Berneconomy

tell that to the local under-employed former workers in the then world's most dominant textile and furniture industries

i was in the room when the manufacturer owners implored Clinton's emissaries not to sign NAFTA, because to do so would put their industries under. he did and they did

I'm not much interested in the scuttlebutt from the union. What I quote are from systematic scholarly reviews of the situation.
 
Re: Berneconomy

There are a number of things that can be done if we just stopped acting like capitalism is some kind of natural law.

Its a construct.

And it is concentrative in nature. The more capital you have the more you can get. And it has concentrated now to an extent that banks are too big to fail, money can be withheld from the economy to a degree it amounts to extortion, speculators can manipulate supply and demand curves, etc.

Its not our fathers' capitalism anymore. The world "filling up" and technology have changed the game so fundamentally that I believe an overhaul is in order. A four hundred year service, as it were.

But wealth concentration would make that almost impossible. The tantrums thrown would be disastrous. Because we have allowed money to pile up in few enough hands we can be disciplined for trying to address excesses in our made up economic system.

No, in fact, captialism is pretty much a natural law. It's what happens spontaneously when people come together to form a market of their own free will and do things in a way that they think is equitable and fair. First, they get to keep what is theirs -- their property or capital is their own. Second, there is no coercion. Any trading done is voluntary. Third, all transactions are mutually beneficial; no one can be forced to give up something if he doesn't think it's in his best interest. If a person is hired then it is again with terms that are mutually beneficial to the employer and employee, and by mutual agreement.
 
Re: Berneconomy

Here's how I would frame it.

They did an interesting experiment on what people consider choice.

They put Americans in a room with several different Soda brands, and Americans saw that as a choice.

They did the same thing in former Eastern Bloc states in Europe and found that they did not see that as a choice at all, Coffea, Tea, Apple Juice, Soda, Water, that was seen as a choice.

As an example of Healthcare in the American context, I don't understand the Conservative argument of "Give the consumer choice", when the prevailing industry practice was to provide less care for higher premiums and kick people off plans for pre-existing conditions etc.

To me that's simply a choice between crap and more crap if they're all engaged in those practices.

In Canada, sure, for my basic provincial insurance for primary care I don't have choice per-say (although I'm not obligated to get it), but I have choice for additional insurance after that for things not covered :shrug: and it works.

If there are 23 different brands of deodorant on the market it means that all of those brands have found a niche, all of them have value for a segment of buyers. It might be differences in quality or price or style or odor. I don't know and you certainly don't know why people choose one over the other. To deny people a choice because you don't understand it is stupid and more than a little totalitarian.

There are many different brands of cola drinks, and I will tell you this: they are not the same. They taste different, they are priced differently, they are packaged differently, among other things. To want a range of brand choices isn't irrational. To want the government to control your choices, that's irrational and flies in the face of experience. In Canada your baby was thrown out with the bathwater and you won't be able to get him back.
 
Re: Berneconomy

There are 19.3 Million White-Americans with Annual Incomes below the poverty line.

There are another 28.7 Million White-Americans with Annual Incomes in the Lowest Percentile of the Income distribution.

There is another 70 Million White-Americans who are above the poor, but certainly are among the "Low" income bracket.

That's around 120 Million White-Americans, or 39% of the Nation who are Poverty-Poor-Low Income, and they don't "Qualify" for Bernie's redistribution based on their "White-Privilege".

Hey Bernie!

We're not WITH YOU!



As long as the Left practices Racial Pandering Preferences, ..... F* YOU!

-
 
Re: Berneconomy

To deny people a choice because you don't understand it is stupid and more than a little totalitarian.

Deodorant examples aside, if a country makes a choice to serve its people on a silver platter to money grubbing companies who's priority is Shareholders and not actually providing life saving healthcare, I don't see dismantling that system as an act of totalitarianism.

There are many different brands of cola drinks, and I will tell you this: they are not the same.

But is is all sugary filled crap at the end of the day, much like HMO's :shrug:

To want the government to control your choices,

Government doesn't actually control my healthcare choices nearly as much as an HMO would :shrug:

That's an old lie of the "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!" :scared: crowd who are still stuck in the cold war mentality.

In Canada your baby was thrown out with the bathwater and you won't be able to get him back.

What the living hell does this mean?
 
Re: Berneconomy

In the minds of the Lefties, a school, government agency, business, sports team, city, military or court....

In the minds of the Lefties, any organization can have:

Too Many Males, but it cannot have too few.
Too Few Females, but it cannot have too many.
Too Many Whites, but it cannot have too few.
Too Few Blacks, but it cannot have to many.

"Diversity" is a one way street, forever!

As a Black person, you can publicly call for the Extermination of all White People!

As a White person, you cannot ask that Illegals show a photo ID before voting.

We let this insanity go on for Four Freak'in DECADES!

Why would any Poverty-Poor-Low Income White-American in their Right Minds think that they would ever "Qualify" for any of the "Free Stuff" the Socialist are waving around?

Why should we support the Left who has spit upon U.S. for four decades?

-
 
Re: Berneconomy

Deodorant examples aside, if a country makes a choice to serve its people on a silver platter to money grubbing companies who's priority is Shareholders and not actually providing life saving healthcare, I don't see dismantling that system as an act of totalitarianism.

That's real Marxist-Leninist jibber jabber right there.

But is is all sugary filled crap at the end of the day, much like HMO's :shrug:

You dismiss the value of everything in bad faith, I think. There's a lot more value and advantage in choice than you seem to realize.

Government doesn't actually control my healthcare choices nearly as much as an HMO would :shrug:

That's an astonishing statement. I'm surprised that you'd even try to make it. If you don't like your HMO then choose another, or maybe a PPO or something. Oh, but you're in Canada. No such choice.

What the living hell does this mean?

Your government controls your health care, you'll never be able to get those choices back, and you're even ignorant of the value of those choices. Well, even the Cubans, as long as they have suffered, are patriotic.
 
Re: Berneconomy

There are 19.3 Million White-Americans with Annual Incomes below the poverty line.

There are another 28.7 Million White-Americans with Annual Incomes in the Lowest Percentile of the Income distribution.

There is another 70 Million White-Americans who are above the poor, but certainly are among the "Low" income bracket.

That's around 120 Million White-Americans, or 39% of the Nation who are Poverty-Poor-Low Income, and they don't "Qualify" for Bernie's redistribution based on their "White-Privilege".

Hey Bernie!

We're not WITH YOU!



As long as the Left practices Racial Pandering Preferences, ..... F* YOU!

-

Irony defined: complaining about "racial pandering" in a post that drags race into a thread that has nothing to do with it and panders to whites.
 
Re: Berneconomy

Irony defined: complaining about "racial pandering" in a post that drags race into a thread that has nothing to do with it and panders to whites.

The Lefties want to Buy Votes with Other People's Money... only, you don't give to EVERYONE, White-Poverty doesn't "Qualify" on account of our White-Privilege.

Well, Bernieonomics fails the test, because 60% of those in need are "Disqualified" by RACE.

Until the Lefties STOP with the Freak'in Official Racial Differential Treatment, EVERYTHING is about RACE!

Live by the Race-card, Die by the Race-Card.

Sorry Bernie!

We're Not With YOU!


Huge numbers of White-Americans do NOT TRUST the Left!

-
 
Last edited:
Re: Berneconomy

The Lefties want to Buy Votes with Other People's Money... only, you don't give to EVERYONE, White-Poverty doesn't "Qualify" on account of our White-Privilege.

Well, Bernieonomics fails the test, because 60% of those in need are "Disqualified" by RACE.

Until the Lefties STOP with the Freak'in Official Racial Differential Treatment, EVERYTHING is about RACE!

Live by the Race-card, Die by the Race-Card.

Sorry Bernie!

We're Not With YOU!


-

The only one playing the race card, or even discussing race, in this thread is you. You are dying by the race card. Irony defined...
 
Re: Berneconomy

Tell that to Bernie, when Millions of Poverty-Poor-Low Income White-Americans Refuse to vote for him or any Candidate of the Democratic Party.

There is NO SUBJECT not related to RACE in America, Post-Obama! He made SURE of it!

-

So your racial fixation is Obama's fault now? :lol:
 
Re: Berneconomy

So your racial fixation is Obama's fault now? :lol:

No. The Democratic Party, and Left's Problem is they have broke the camel's back.

Too Long they supported Institutionalized Racial Discrimination, and racial double standards!

White Americans no longer TRUST or Respect you!

Look at the above posted list of links, showing how it is far, far, more than just Kurmugeon who is put off by the Racial Pandering.

Face it, the Left, has Lost Working Whites...

... And you cannot Hope to win without U.S.

-
 
Re: Berneconomy

No. The Democratic Party, and Left's Problem is they have broke the camel's back.

Too Long they supported Institutionalized Racial Discrimination, and racial double standards!

White Americans no longer TRUST or Respect you!

Look at the above posted list of links, showing how it is far, far, more than just Kurmugeon who is put off by the Racial Pandering.

Face it, the Left, has Lost Working Whites...

... And you cannot Hope to win without U.S.

-

So your racial fixation is every one's fault but your own. I see...
 
Re: Berneconomy

That's real Marxist-Leninist jibber jabber right there.

Yeah for those that simply don't understand and see everything they don't like as MARXIST!!!!!! :scared:

You dismiss the value of everything in bad faith, I think. There's a lot more value and advantage in choice than you seem to realize.

Not from what market research and statistics would seem to indicate, considering it's the #1 reason for bankruptcy in the US.

That's an astonishing statement. I'm surprised that you'd even try to make it. If you don't like your HMO then choose another, or maybe a PPO or something.

And choose between one company that's out to screw you over and another that's out to screw you over... that's not much of a choice and that's my entire point.

Oh, but you're in Canada. No such choice.

Technically no, I still can get private insurance of my choice for things beyond primary care, but that's just not an issue for us at all, again if the choice is between one piece of crap and another, you're just looking for the one with less chunks in it and that's not really a choice.

Your government controls your health care,

And HMO's control yours, they decide what treatments they'll pay for and what they won't, and by extension for most effecting what treatments most can obtain because of their economic background... There's very little beyond very elective things provinces won't cover as far as treatments (though drugs aren't covered at all) but again, that's no different than HMO's in the US :shrug:

Primary care of this nature, is an investment, not a handout of every single working Canadian, it works and it's a smart investment.

you'll never be able to get those choices back,

Yes we can, far more than you will ever be able to do with HMO's, HMO's are beholden to shareholders, Politicians manage our system, if they fail they can be voted out and it can be an election issue, therefore we are more in control of our healthcare system than you are of yours.

and you're even ignorant of the value of those choices.

Nope.

You're ignorant of the way our system works, so the only ignorance here is yours.

Well, even the Cubans, as long as they have suffered, are patriotic.

Irrelevant dribble as usual.
 
Re: Berneconomy

I never said I supported Sanders. I said his support comes from frustration with status quo politics.

The überrich elite and their enablers ignore Sanders's populism at their peril.
 
Back
Top Bottom