Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

 

[Andylusion]

"Bill Gates says he’s happy to pay $20 billion in taxes, but Warren’s plan will make him ‘do a little math on what I have left over"
I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a friend of mine. He's also the biggest liar among them by far. However, I must credit him with always being exceptionally manipulative, greedy, control freakish, narcissistic, and stubborn. Also, no one in history has benefited more personally from simply being in the right place at the right time. For someone so average to accomplish so little of actual note other than destroying public education and extracting massive wealth from Microsoft for decades while always pretending to be giving it away, he's certainly snowed the general public.

“Bill Gates is a Parasite”

"'Bill Gates is a Parasite'"

"Noam Chomsky, interviewed by the BBC:

"'My success comes from my ability to embrace and expand the ideas of others.' — Bill Gates. He is a parasite. All he has to add to that is that he’s a parasite off the public sector.

"Because, in fact, almost everything that he does, whether it’s computers or the internet or anything else, are things that the ordinary person paid for.

"Think of the internet.

"That’s thirty years of development, inside the public sector, mostly out of the pentagon.

"All of the ideas, the technology, the hardware, the software, everything. Finally, just two or three years ago it’s given over to Bill Gates. And that’s called a victory of the market."

Bill has certainly made the most of an accident of birth.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

He has no economics training. He has never worked a full day in the real world. Never quote him. To me, someone quoting Noam Chomsky about economics, is like asking the Soviets the best options for Nuclear power in 1986.

If you have a question about languages, then go read what Noam Chomsky has to say. Otherwise, it's one ignorant person, quoting another ignorant person.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

Convince me you know more about economics than Chomsky does.

Profit over People - Wikipedia

I'll just cite your posts. That's my proof. That one you just posted...... that right there I would cite as evidence he's an idiot.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

Just pick another source, and I'll debate you on it. I have no problem with you personally, just Chomsky is a moron. I'm not going to debate the ramblings of a deranged lunatic.

He is a linguist. He's even a brilliant linguist. But he's a linguist. Chomsky, makes Ralph Nader, look like a thought leader, and moderate. Even Nader had to call out Chomsky.

Nader’s critical introduction to the subject begins at 46:34, and it’s worth hearing because it provides some contrast to Chomsky’s defense of the Bolivarian regime. Nader acknowledges the Trump administration’s regime change agenda and the inglorious history of America’s involvement in Latin America during the Cold War. However, he goes on to observe that “the cronyism, the corruption, the colossal mismanagement of Chavez and Maduro have been so deep that you can’t simply write it off as a consequence of foreign intervention.” Nader then reads a leftwing critic’s lengthy indictment of the regime’s mismanagement, including “[a] ten[fold increase in] the murder rate, total stagnation, abrupt decline in hospital infrastructure, before and especially during [the period] 2000 to the present.” This corruption and incompetence has left the country at the mercy of what the critic called the “neoliberal elite,” “foreign oil, mining, and timber companies,” and “IMF-style austerity measures that will seem like a picnic next to Maduro’s madness.”
​

Venezuela and the Half-Truths of Noam Chomsky - Quillette

He's an idiot. Defending Chavez and Maduro, while blaming capitalists, is ridiculous, and even Nader can't deny it.

Look sir, I have no problem with discussing anything with you..... just Noam Chomsky is not source I'm going to respect. If you want to keep citing him, that's your choice, and I'll keep calling him an idiot, because he is.

What has Chomsky ever said or done to convince you he is an idiot?

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

"One of the most cited scholars alive,[18] Chomsky has influenced a broad array of academic fields.

"He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."

Just from what you posted should give you a clue.

He is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.​

I agree with this.

"In addition to his continued scholarship, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media.

"His ideas have proven highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, but have also drawn criticism, with some accusing Chomsky of anti-Americanism."
​

I agree with this as well.


But do you notice the difference between the two?

The first one, is research, study, science, and so on.

The second is critic, and influence.

The first refers to his academic study, which no one contends with. Everyone understands that he is a brilliant linguist, and knows tons about that topic, and connected topics.

But the second is just being influential, and critical.

Anyone can be an influencer. It does not take any intelligence whatsoever to influence people. Obama and Trump. There you go. Both highly influential, and yet Obama was ridiculous, and even said sub-prime loans were a good idea. And Trump, well you know Trump.

Yet both were influencers.

And he is a critic. It takes no intelligence whatsoever to be a critic. Anyone can stand around and say " You all suck". Take yourself. You have not posted an original thought on this thread yet. Yet you are critic. You cut and post from a dozen 10-year-old memes that are already obsolete, and constantly criticize everything the US has done to this day.

No original thought whatsoever, and yet I wager you are one of the most critical posters on the forum.

The last time I wasted my time listening to Chomsky, was about 8 years ago, when in an open forum, a kid from a university asked him why it seemed like those countries largely based on Capitalism (and he named a few) consistently out performed countries that seemed to be mostly based on Socialism (and named a few).

I then suffered through the ridiculous Orwellian "new speak" of Chomsky trying to explain to everyone that every single country that was socialist (even those that the government itself proclaimed to be socialists) were actually Capitalist and that's why they were failing.... and every country that was Capitalist, was actually socialist (even if they themselves proclaimed to be capitalist), and that's why they were succeeding.

Just listening to him, I could actually physically feel the stupidity oozing around me.

He is a total idiot. I'm sorry... he is.

 

[dblack]

I remember watching the Vietnam War on the news every night.

Wow, so you may be older than your infantile assertions indicate. Or you could just be lying.

Careful!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

Based on her proposals.
Trump. Not even close. Trump by a lot.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students. It's amazing when you find out how many dropped out of college, to become multi-billionaires. In fact, I think the extremely high levels of greed and envy we see at major university faculty, is due to the fact they see people who are not as smart as they are, going off and being far more successful.

Just my theory.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about which president 'knows more' about macroeconomics. What I'm worried about is who will listen to sound advice.

Trump, for all his ridiculousness, has in fact listened repeatedly to sound advice. That's one of the reasons he bounces around on topics. He comes out with "this is my plan", and then goes back to the white house and people say "sir maybe we should do X instead", and then he does X instead.

I'm more worried about Warren thinking she knows how the economy works, because she was in a university posing as a native.

Herbert Hoover famously thought he knew what was best for the economy, and pushed for the protectionist tariffs. People throughout the country warned that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would have disastrous consequences, and Hoover ignored them. Everything that the economists, and policy officials warned about, happened.

Why didn't Hoover listen? Because he thought he was educated, and knew better.

That's what I'm worried about with Warren.

 

[Andylusion]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Nader was right. Chomsky was not.

The proof is looking at Venezuela now, after Chomsky's hero had his way with the country.

It doesn't bother me to quote Nader, if I know the other person isn't intelligent enough to consider a more valid critique of Chomsky.

I had to pick a source closer to your level, simply because your level is just that low.

 

[georgephillip]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago. At that time I was informed black men could not run fast enough to play football in the NFL, and black men could not jump high enough to play in the NBA. Since I was among the first generation to have a television in my home, I realized there was no rational basis for local conservatives holding their racist beliefs. I really thought it couldn't get any worse...

‘The Apprentice’: 9 Lessons About Donald Trump From Binge-Watching the First Season

Obviously, I underestimated their gullibility.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

 

[georgephillip]

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students. It's amazing when you find out how many dropped out of college, to become multi-billionaires. In fact, I think the extremely high levels of greed and envy we see at major university faculty, is due to the fact they see people who are not as smart as they are, going off and being far more successful.

Just my theory.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about which president 'knows more' about macroeconomics. What I'm worried about is who will listen to sound advice.

Trump, for all his ridiculousness, has in fact listened repeatedly to sound advice. That's one of the reasons he bounces around on topics. He comes out with "this is my plan", and then goes back to the white house and people say "sir maybe we should do X instead", and then he does X instead.

I'm more worried about Warren thinking she knows how the economy works, because she was in a university posing as a native.

Herbert Hoover famously thought he knew what was best for the economy, and pushed for the protectionist tariffs. People throughout the country warned that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would have disastrous consequences, and Hoover ignored them. Everything that the economists, and policy officials warned about, happened.

Why didn't Hoover listen? Because he thought he was educated, and knew better.

That's what I'm worried about with Warren.

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students.

Which business did Trump make succeed without any help from his rich daddy or corrupt Russians?

 

[Andylusion]

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students. It's amazing when you find out how many dropped out of college, to become multi-billionaires. In fact, I think the extremely high levels of greed and envy we see at major university faculty, is due to the fact they see people who are not as smart as they are, going off and being far more successful.

Just my theory.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about which president 'knows more' about macroeconomics. What I'm worried about is who will listen to sound advice.

Trump, for all his ridiculousness, has in fact listened repeatedly to sound advice. That's one of the reasons he bounces around on topics. He comes out with "this is my plan", and then goes back to the white house and people say "sir maybe we should do X instead", and then he does X instead.

I'm more worried about Warren thinking she knows how the economy works, because she was in a university posing as a native.

Herbert Hoover famously thought he knew what was best for the economy, and pushed for the protectionist tariffs. People throughout the country warned that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would have disastrous consequences, and Hoover ignored them. Everything that the economists, and policy officials warned about, happened.

Why didn't Hoover listen? Because he thought he was educated, and knew better.

That's what I'm worried about with Warren.

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students.

Which business did Trump make succeed without any help from his rich daddy or corrupt Russians?

I guarantee that without Trump, "The Apprentice" would not have been a success.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students. It's amazing when you find out how many dropped out of college, to become multi-billionaires. In fact, I think the extremely high levels of greed and envy we see at major university faculty, is due to the fact they see people who are not as smart as they are, going off and being far more successful.

Just my theory.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about which president 'knows more' about macroeconomics. What I'm worried about is who will listen to sound advice.

Trump, for all his ridiculousness, has in fact listened repeatedly to sound advice. That's one of the reasons he bounces around on topics. He comes out with "this is my plan", and then goes back to the white house and people say "sir maybe we should do X instead", and then he does X instead.

I'm more worried about Warren thinking she knows how the economy works, because she was in a university posing as a native.

Herbert Hoover famously thought he knew what was best for the economy, and pushed for the protectionist tariffs. People throughout the country warned that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would have disastrous consequences, and Hoover ignored them. Everything that the economists, and policy officials warned about, happened.

Why didn't Hoover listen? Because he thought he was educated, and knew better.

That's what I'm worried about with Warren.

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students.

Which business did Trump make succeed without any help from his rich daddy or corrupt Russians?

/----/ The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner.[4] About 250 of these entities use the Trump name

 

[Cellblock2429]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

 

[dblack]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

 

[georgephillip]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

By "liberal" you mean..?

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world.

"According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "'n the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'"

 

[georgephillip]

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

/----/ Pochantas can't draw flies in a honey factory.
WARREN PLAYS TO EMPTY HALL

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

/----/ So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky.

So some former professor knows more about business than the billionaire who is also the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, Spanky

Trump owes all his "success" to an accident of birth:

"In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader.

"But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire.

"He was a millionaire by age 8.

"By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.

"Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father."

Chomsky, not so much.

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

 

[georgephillip]

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"A potential 2020 election showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren would undoubtedly be touted as a clash of ideological extremes, but when it comes to economic policy, there is one area where there’s little daylight between the candidates."

Possibly true, but doubtful.

The real damage to the US dollar, is the damage to capitalism and productivity.

The reality with all exchange mediums... is all mediums only have value for what you can exchange them for. That's why we call them a medium of exchange.

Gold has no inherent value. The value of gold, is in what you can exchange it for.

Same is true of any other exchange medium.

As long as there is a massive amount of goods and services that you can exchange the US Dollar for, the dollar will have value.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

Efforts by the government to weaken the dollar, will only be effective in one of two ways. Either they drastically reduce the productivity of the US, resulting in fewer goods and services being available, which results in the value of the dollar going down..... or they print money and cause inflation.

I don't see either of them doing that, but I do see Warren wiping out the economy.

What at Trump vs. Warren 2020 showdown would mean for the U.S. dollar

"But both Trump and Warren contend an overly strong dollar hurts U.S. competitiveness..."

"Trump has made his displeasure with the dollar’s persistent strength relative to other major currencies clear on Twitter and elsewhere, even prompting fears of a return to unilateral intervention in currency markets, despite assurances by White House officials that such actions were off the table.

"Warren, in outlining what she calls her 'plan for economic patriotism', wrote that the U.S. government 'should consider a number of tools and work with other countries harmed by currency misalignment to produce a currency value that’s better for our workers and our industries.'"

Which candidate likely has a better understanding of Macroeconomics?

George Conway on Twitter

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students. It's amazing when you find out how many dropped out of college, to become multi-billionaires. In fact, I think the extremely high levels of greed and envy we see at major university faculty, is due to the fact they see people who are not as smart as they are, going off and being far more successful.

Just my theory.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about which president 'knows more' about macroeconomics. What I'm worried about is who will listen to sound advice.

Trump, for all his ridiculousness, has in fact listened repeatedly to sound advice. That's one of the reasons he bounces around on topics. He comes out with "this is my plan", and then goes back to the white house and people say "sir maybe we should do X instead", and then he does X instead.

I'm more worried about Warren thinking she knows how the economy works, because she was in a university posing as a native.

Herbert Hoover famously thought he knew what was best for the economy, and pushed for the protectionist tariffs. People throughout the country warned that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would have disastrous consequences, and Hoover ignored them. Everything that the economists, and policy officials warned about, happened.

Why didn't Hoover listen? Because he thought he was educated, and knew better.

That's what I'm worried about with Warren.

Yeah, I think that's possibly true. Honestly most people who know how to make a business succeed, are not necessarily great students.

Which business did Trump make succeed without any help from his rich daddy or corrupt Russians?

/----/ The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner.[4] About 250 of these entities use the Trump name

The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner.[4] About 250 of these entities use the Trump name

Most corrupt POTUS ever

"They don’t even try very hard to hide it.

"President Trump, his family and more than a few of his appointees are using his presidency to enrich themselves. They are spending taxpayer dollars for their own benefit.

"They are accepting sweetheart deals from foreigners. And they are harnessing the power of the federal government on behalf of their businesses.

"There’s a word for this: corruption."

Opinion | Trump’s Corruption: The Definitive List

 

[daveman]

Like every other human being on the planet Chomsky is wrong about some of his opinions; why would any rational person equate that to idiocy?

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Just imagine the crow eating it took, the suffering involved, to actually laud and quote Nader in one's crazed attempt to put Chomsky in his place? LOL

I heard that show. The Ralph Nader radio hour is the best podcast bar none.
(Though Jimmy Dore is a close second. )

Because they were never really rational to begin with. I know, rhetorical
Easily triggered by critiques of capitalism? Yes.
Rational? No.

Some of my earliest conversations with conservatives took place over a half century ago.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

That was back when liberals (some of them at least) still cared about individual rights.

By "liberal" you mean..?

Liberalism - Wikipedia

"Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world.

"According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "'n the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'"

In America, liberalism is the opposite of individual liberty. It's complete government control of people based on their demographics. Individualism is discouraged, and liberty is legislated away.

 

[georgephillip]

Economists Use “Fuzzy Graphs” to Challenge Data on the Human Cost of Trump Sanctions on Venezuela

"In our paper, 'Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela,' we looked at some of the ways in which the sanctions on Venezuela imposed by the US government curtail access to essential and life-saving imports, and some of the data on impacts such as mortality. We concluded that US economic sanctions since August 2017 have likely caused a dire rise in mortality and a grave aggravation of Venezuela’s economic crisis"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economists Use “Fuzzy Graphs” to Challenge Data on the Human Cost of Trump Sanctions on Venezuela

"In our paper, 'Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela,' we looked at some of the ways in which the sanctions on Venezuela imposed by the US government curtail access to essential and life-saving imports, and some of the data on impacts such as mortality. We concluded that US economic sanctions since August 2017 have likely caused a dire rise in mortality and a grave aggravation of Venezuela’s economic crisis"

Only socialists can turn the largest oil reserves in the world into widespread starvation.

Fucking morons.