Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So basically the Swiss just got lucky finding that niche? Even though they are one of the oldest governments in the world, they just somehow keep finding that niche throughout history. But I guess they are able to feed off of the other nations in a sense. Nothing to do with their policy?(which by the way is what we were originally based off of). And we are to ignore them bc they are small, not necessarily small, still a good size European country, but still too small for us to recognize?My understanding is based on history, look at Kennedy's tax plan and how that helped job growth and boosts tax recites. Look at the laize faire policy of Switzerland and how their economy/standard of living/overall happiness, has been just fine over the past 500 years. Singapore is another good example. Not all regulation is bad... But most is, and it just keeps growing. The answer is not to limit and consolidate those who have control. Or to just declare it's say it's too complicated and we don't understand, so let's let these people decide. That is essentially what your sayingInequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of themAh what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems
No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.
China wants a weak currency to help exports.
Everything you said is total gibberish.
Try again.
When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.
Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.
When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.
Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.
Switzerland is a tiny country that was able to carve out a niche because it is surrounded by much larger nations with much larger economies. It is not really a lesson in reducing regulations but in comparative advantages and how nations relate to one another. Singapore is largely the same way in terms of finance but they also benefit from trade.
Regulations always have to be considered relative to how they impact trade between nations. That is why a lot of trade talks deal with attempts by larger more developed nations convincing smaller nations to increase their regulations. A large economy like the US can take a stand against something like air pollution but that won't stop a company from simply opening up a factory in China and polluting the air in China because the people in China who pay the cost of air pollution don't have the power to stop them.
Economic efficiency is obviously not the only consideration for a regulation. Markets are great at making certain types of value judgments but they are historically bad at making others. This includes everything from the health of workers, to the impact on the environment, to managing financial risk.
I'm all for ending foreign wars (outside of genocide or DIRECT threat, not possible threat), and absolute failed war on drugs. War on poverty you'd have to define in how that's waged. And war on terror I answered, but we've f'd that up since Sykes picot... Thanks progressivesWhy end the regulation of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and let supply and demand lower our Tax burden?Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of themAh what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problemsI'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.
Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.
At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.
So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.
You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.
No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.
China wants a weak currency to help exports.
Everything you said is total gibberish.
Try again.
When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.
So basically the Swiss just got lucky finding that niche? Even though they are one of the oldest governments in the world, they just somehow keep finding that niche throughout history. But I guess they are able to feed off of the other nations in a sense. Nothing to do with their policy?(which by the way is what we were originally based off of). And we are to ignore them bc they are small, not necessarily small, still a good size European country, but still too small for us to recognize?My understanding is based on history, look at Kennedy's tax plan and how that helped job growth and boosts tax recites. Look at the laize faire policy of Switzerland and how their economy/standard of living/overall happiness, has been just fine over the past 500 years. Singapore is another good example. Not all regulation is bad... But most is, and it just keeps growing. The answer is not to limit and consolidate those who have control. Or to just declare it's say it's too complicated and we don't understand, so let's let these people decide. That is essentially what your sayingInequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of themNo I am not talking about opportunity inequality.
China wants a weak currency to help exports.
Everything you said is total gibberish.
Try again.
When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.
Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.
When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.
Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.
Switzerland is a tiny country that was able to carve out a niche because it is surrounded by much larger nations with much larger economies. It is not really a lesson in reducing regulations but in comparative advantages and how nations relate to one another. Singapore is largely the same way in terms of finance but they also benefit from trade.
Regulations always have to be considered relative to how they impact trade between nations. That is why a lot of trade talks deal with attempts by larger more developed nations convincing smaller nations to increase their regulations. A large economy like the US can take a stand against something like air pollution but that won't stop a company from simply opening up a factory in China and polluting the air in China because the people in China who pay the cost of air pollution don't have the power to stop them.
Economic efficiency is obviously not the only consideration for a regulation. Markets are great at making certain types of value judgments but they are historically bad at making others. This includes everything from the health of workers, to the impact on the environment, to managing financial risk.
Here's my next question when has a regulation ever been enough? Give it ten years or so and it needs to be re-regulated. And with all the regulation we currently have, do you personally think it is enough concerning the three that apparently ordinary folk can't do on their own, healthcare of workers, impact on the environment, and managing financial risk. Mind you healthcare for workers was invented by I believe Henry ford, not the fed. And there was a bigger financial crash before, that by all metrics should have been worse than the Great Depression, but self corrected in a year. And we have made hydrogen cars, almost just as efficient as petroleum powered cars, no emissions, and limitless energy since hydrogen is by far the most abundant element in the universe. Why are we not using them?
Here's another question, would a JFK style tax cut boost Americas economy? If not, than why did it work that time?
And yes regulation is not the only factor, but it is a big one, especially considering the natural resources, ingenuity, and intelligent workforce that America possesses, yet so much goes to waste.
I'm not the one beating on a straw man, my point about Switzerland is that they should not be ignored, bc they are smaller and apparently feed off of the other larger economies (banking is by far not the only thing the Swiss do). I've got one good answer from you which was OSHA regs helping lower injury rates, which I will give. But I have also said not all regulation is bad, most of it either creates some sort of gatekeeper with too much power, or creates artificial supply and artificial demand, or just market manipulation which always turns south depending on how much is done. I also believe that govt should do things like break up the modern day monopolies, but most of those are created with the help of govt. I also want a new regulation (and this is my own, still in early phase idea) but something like a limit on how many robots, automation, etc., that a company can own, say 5 or so, the rest the company would have to rent from private citizen owners of those robotics. We have a quickly approaching age of robotics coming and at best 40% of the current jobs will no longer exist. And that number will only get worse as robotics improves, we will not be needed for much longer by big business. But anyway, i am in no way saying throw the baby out with the bath water, just that that water is pretty damn dirty.So basically the Swiss just got lucky finding that niche? Even though they are one of the oldest governments in the world, they just somehow keep finding that niche throughout history. But I guess they are able to feed off of the other nations in a sense. Nothing to do with their policy?(which by the way is what we were originally based off of). And we are to ignore them bc they are small, not necessarily small, still a good size European country, but still too small for us to recognize?My understanding is based on history, look at Kennedy's tax plan and how that helped job growth and boosts tax recites. Look at the laize faire policy of Switzerland and how their economy/standard of living/overall happiness, has been just fine over the past 500 years. Singapore is another good example. Not all regulation is bad... But most is, and it just keeps growing. The answer is not to limit and consolidate those who have control. Or to just declare it's say it's too complicated and we don't understand, so let's let these people decide. That is essentially what your sayingInequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them
When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.
Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.
When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.
Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.
Switzerland is a tiny country that was able to carve out a niche because it is surrounded by much larger nations with much larger economies. It is not really a lesson in reducing regulations but in comparative advantages and how nations relate to one another. Singapore is largely the same way in terms of finance but they also benefit from trade.
Regulations always have to be considered relative to how they impact trade between nations. That is why a lot of trade talks deal with attempts by larger more developed nations convincing smaller nations to increase their regulations. A large economy like the US can take a stand against something like air pollution but that won't stop a company from simply opening up a factory in China and polluting the air in China because the people in China who pay the cost of air pollution don't have the power to stop them.
Economic efficiency is obviously not the only consideration for a regulation. Markets are great at making certain types of value judgments but they are historically bad at making others. This includes everything from the health of workers, to the impact on the environment, to managing financial risk.
Here's my next question when has a regulation ever been enough? Give it ten years or so and it needs to be re-regulated. And with all the regulation we currently have, do you personally think it is enough concerning the three that apparently ordinary folk can't do on their own, healthcare of workers, impact on the environment, and managing financial risk. Mind you healthcare for workers was invented by I believe Henry ford, not the fed. And there was a bigger financial crash before, that by all metrics should have been worse than the Great Depression, but self corrected in a year. And we have made hydrogen cars, almost just as efficient as petroleum powered cars, no emissions, and limitless energy since hydrogen is by far the most abundant element in the universe. Why are we not using them?
Here's another question, would a JFK style tax cut boost Americas economy? If not, than why did it work that time?
And yes regulation is not the only factor, but it is a big one, especially considering the natural resources, ingenuity, and intelligent workforce that America possesses, yet so much goes to waste.
I agreed that it had to do with their policy. You are arguing against straw.
If you want to go further back you can even say it had to do with their military might which allowed them to remain safe and stable which is a big deal considering the military history of the region and the economic damage those wars had.
Safety standards were effective at reducing injury rates and death rates in a lot of professions. The reason we may have to revisit those regulations is because jobs change and technology changes that offer new challenges and new opportunities. That doesn't mean all workplace safety regulations are perfect.
There are a lot of reasons why we don't drive hydrogen cars besides regulations. Stop being ridiculous.
The economy is going to grow or shrink for a lot of different reasons. Tax receipts will also go up and down for a lot of different reasons. For example if you passed a law that said in 2016 the tax rate on capital gains will be 20% but in 2017 the tax rate with be 5% there will be way more activity in 2017 than 2016 because people have a fair amount of freedom in determining when they realize capital gains income. That doesn't mean that tax cut increased economic activity that significantly in the long run.
Regulations are always worth looking at and refining but when doing so we can't simply throw the baby out with the bath water and we can't buy into the ideological nonsense that acts like regulations are the evil boogeyman.
