Donald Trump

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Cicero said:

The issue there is thinking collective social justice should override individual justice. Positive rights and negative rights conflicting once more. 

What happens if a fairly short clause of the constitution is having an entire half of it not applied, which leads to another group having their natural inherent rights violated by a small part of another larger group?

I think this is the problem in putting too much faith in a very old and vague document as the end-all-be-all of U.S. government, while it's selectively interpreted (and these interpretations are capable of changing based on purely partisan reasons).

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

There is a deeper philosophical existence in the constitution to think the founders only cared about their self interest. There will always be a continuous conflict between politics and morality, however it shouldn't be at a cost of your individual liberty being threatened. That is where the intervention of positive and negative rights are introduced. Positive rights are not self fulfilling, which in turn restricts an individual's freedom and therefor creates inherent conflict. Be it a peasant or an aristocrat, no one can leverage power on your individual rights. That is the true nature of negative rights and the US has built it's success off that foundation. 

 

I have no doubt that the founders were often sincere idealists, but I'm saying that the material circumstances they lived in shaped their ideas and blinded them to the realities of those ideas. 

People can believe that the ideas that suit them best, are sincerely the ideas that just so happen to be the most humane and ethical ones. We are conditioned to be selfish but also to convince ourselves that we are altruists. 

[Cicero]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What happens if a fairly short clause of the constitution is having an entire half of it not applied, which leads to another group having their natural inherent rights violated by a small part of another larger group?

I think this is the problem in putting too much faith in a very old and vague document as the end-all-be-all of U.S. government, while it's selectively interpreted (and these interpretations are capable of changing based on purely partisan reasons).

But this very old and vague document emphasised the importance of individual freedom, which set the foundation that ultimately built the success of the United States. The constitution describes the importance of individual liberty and how no one can leverage power over your individual rights. (Positive v Negative). It also details the importance of working virtuously in order to feel secure that you do not invade another person's rights. Freedom ultimately comes with responsibility. Collectivist philosophy goes against the constitution, given it demands we give up our individual responsibility for the comfort of collective power. 

 As I mentioned to Inverted, the constitution has a deeper philosophical existence that he wasn't crediting. In fact, it parallels with Judeo-Christian Philosophy. 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

25 minutes ago, Cicero said:

But this very old and vague document emphasised the importance of individual freedom, which set the foundation that ultimately built the success of the United States. The constitution describes the importance of individual liberty and how no one can leverage power over your individual rights. (Positive v Negative). It also details the importance of working virtuously in order to feel secure that you do not invade another person's rights. Freedom ultimately comes with responsibility. Collectivist philosophy goes against the constitution, given it demands we give up our individual responsibility for the comfort of collective power. 

 As I mentioned to Inverted, the constitution has a deeper philosophical existence that he wasn't crediting. In fact, it parallels with Judeo-Christian Philosophy. 

 

 

I think the success of the US is mostly down to most industrial nations being decimated in the aftermath of WW2 more than the constitution 

[Cicero]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the success of the US is mostly down to most industrial nations being decimated in the aftermath of WW2 more than the constitution 

Restriction of government spending and taxes also helped. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

40 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Restriction of government spending and taxes also helped. 

During the era of most prosperity in America? I think you’ll find America was most prosperous under its highest taxation rates in the 1950s. And the New Deal and World War 2 were pretty massive, neither cheap for the government.

[Cicero]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

During the era of most prosperity in America? I think you’ll find America was most prosperous under its highest taxation rates in the 1950s. And the New Deal and World War 2 were pretty massive, neither cheap for the government.

I'm referring to the 75% reduction of government spending during the mid to late 1940's that had the US get out of the depression. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

18 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I'm referring to the 75% reduction of government spending during the mid to late 1940's that had the US get out of the depression. 

Most people contend that the Great Depression ended by the late 30s - yes there were long lasting after effects of the depression (particularly in countries effected that weren't the United States and had the brutal war fought on their territory). A quick google search though suggests that Ayn Rand worshipping libertarians and far right economic think tanks disagree with that sentiment and claim the depression didn't quite end up until the 1940s. But a depression isn't just when an economy is weak, it's sustained long-term economic downturn.

The 1950s were America's period of biggest prosperity. In 1944, the highest income tax bracket was taxed at 94%. That's very very high, but there was also a war going on. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the tax rate went down... but the top tax rate never went below 70%.

It was not until Reagan's bullshit supply side economics came into effect that the super rich in America enjoyed very low taxes. It had a great short term effect (but a devastating long-term effect, as we have seen since) - but then there was another economic downturn and the rate had to go back up to 35%. Reagan was an awful president who gave birth to many of the political problems facing America today. The 80s were the beginning of America's right shifting further and further and further to the right.

I wonder if Nixon hadn't shat all upon the constitution if we'd not have seen the polarisation of the American right wing... because other than Watergate, there's a good argument to be made that Nixon was the last good republican president. Nowadays, if he was still alive and kicking and operating politically but with the same views, he'd be considered a slightly left of centre democrat most likely.

[Inverted]

5 hours ago, Cicero said:

I'm referring to the 75% reduction of government spending during the mid to late 1940's that had the US get out of the depression. 

The Depression was lifted by the massive expansion of the US government under the New Deal pre-war and then the enormous spending on the war effort. 

Economic growth post-war was also immensely helped by publicly-funded research during the war, such as the development of Lockheed bombers which were basically converted into planes which facilitated the birth of mass airline travel. 

[Cicero]

59 minutes ago, Inverted said:

The Depression was lifted by the massive expansion of the US government under the New Deal pre-war and then the enormous spending on the war effort. 

Economic growth post-war was also immensely helped by publicly-funded research during the war, such as the development of Lockheed bombers which were basically converted into planes which facilitated the birth of mass airline travel. 

From 1945 to 1948, US government spending dropped 75%. With it grew personal consumption and private investment. Ultimately healing the deficit caused by the depression and war efforts. The private economy than began to surge. 

[Honey Honey]

6 hours ago, Cicero said:

From 1945 to 1948, US government spending dropped 75%. With it grew personal consumption and private investment. Ultimately healing the deficit caused by the depression and war efforts. The private economy than began to surge. 

Debt to GDP and public spending in the recession years of 1945-1950 and all years since is higher than during the 1930s. 

A government surplus shrinks the economy if the private sector does not make up the slack which could be linked to being in a recession over 1 year after the end of war production. Or coincidental like most economic assertions. The US government was back into deficit spending for most of the golden era. At levels similar to just before the war, the depression deficit wasn't much of a hangover.

What's the theoretical basis for the idea private sector would surge if the government ran a surplus? It seems a a great leap and contradicted by many examples and data theories.

[Harry]

16 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the success of the US is mostly down to most industrial nations being decimated in the aftermath of WW2 more than the constitution 

The size of the populace and domestic market also helped.

16 hours ago, Cicero said:

Restriction of government spending and taxes also helped. 

I don't think the limits of government have been the differentiators between the US and other western economies. 

[Inverted]

9 hours ago, Cicero said:

From 1945 to 1948, US government spending dropped 75%. With it grew personal consumption and private investment. Ultimately healing the deficit caused by the depression and war efforts. The private economy than began to surge. 

That's because the United States was demobilising from the largest war in human history.  Dozens of aircraft carriers and tens of thousands of warplanes and tanks cost a lot of money. 

The Depression was already gone by 1945 - the wartime economy 1941-45 was a character completely of its own. But the Depression had already begun to fade in the late 30s off the back of FDR's massive expansion of federal economic activity in infrastructure, social security, etc. 

[Cicero]

5 hours ago, Harvsky said:

 

What's the theoretical basis for the idea private sector would surge if the government ran a surplus? It seems a a great leap and contradicted by many examples and data theories.

The theory that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy as well as private market forces. The reduction of spending and marginal tax rates created low inflation and privatization led to a resurgence of large manufacturing corporations. 

2 hours ago, Inverted said:

The Depression was already gone by 1945 - the wartime economy 1941-45 was a character completely of its own. But the Depression had already begun to fade in the late 30s off the back of FDR's massive expansion of federal economic activity ininfrastructure, social security, etc. 

Again, that is a myth. It was disguised by price controls and necessary defence spending. What they don't teach in the history books is the recession of 1946. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

You do realise there was a world war right?

[Cicero]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You do realise there was a world war right?

To which prosperity was only restored after the end of it. Not during it. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

15 minutes ago, Cicero said:

To which prosperity was only restored after the end of it. Not during it. 

Right but think about why government spending and taxes were so high. It’s because there was a massive war effort - and the US was manufacturing things not only for the US war effort, but also for the UK’s and Russia’s.

And even with the reduction in taxes, the top tax bracket was taxed at a rate of 70%. That’s more than 3 times what it is now. And in the 1950s, when they reduced taxes after the war they actually reduced government spending. That’s a far cry from the modern day GOP who budgeted a spending increase while significantly reducing taxes.

And it’s not a myth the depression began to fade by the late 30s. Getting out of a depression doesn’t necessarily mean now prosperity has returned - getting out of a depression means an end to sustained economic slowdown. The height of unemployment in the depression was 1933, where it was 24%. By 1940 it was down 10%. By 1944 it reached 1.4% - which is actually underemployment (which also slows economic growth). Unemployment remained low in the US until Reagan’s dementia riddled brain took office and then it was back to double didgits in 1982.

[Cicero]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Right but think about why government spending and taxes were so high. It’s because there was a massive war effort - and the US was manufacturing things not only for the US war effort, but also for the UK’s and Russia’s.

And even with the reduction in taxes, the top tax bracket was taxed at a rate of 70%. That’s more than 3 times what it is now. And in the 1950s, when they reduced taxes after the war they actually reduced government spending. That’s a far cry from the modern day GOP who budgeted a spending increase while significantly reducing taxes.

And it’s not a myth the depression began to fade by the late 30s. Getting out of a depression doesn’t necessarily mean now prosperity has returned - getting out of a depression means an end to sustained economic slowdown. The height of unemployment in the depression was 1933, where it was 24%. By 1940 it was down 10%. By 1944 it reached 1.4% - which is actually underemployment (which also slows economic growth). Unemployment remained low in the US until Reagan’s dementia riddled brain took office and then it was back to double didgits in 1982.

The part in bold is essentially what I'm talking about. The unemployment was statistical residue of sending millions of Americans to war. It does not reflect the standard of living given the wage/price controls and the rationing of consumer goods. That cannot be measured the same as goods and services which are purchased voluntarily through market transactions. The US didn't see true economic growth until after the war, where low marginal taxes surged large manufacturing corporations that expanded the workforce by 7 million. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Cicero - but the domestic workforce also expanded pretty significantly simply because the war ended and the many of the 7.6 million US troops stationed abroad for the war came home. And if you look at the stats, the workforce actually decreased after the war - the U.S. went from a underemployment to an economically healthy unemployment rate.

But you can't say there wasn't true economic growth until after the war, because it's simply not true. The U.S. saw pretty significant economic growth from 1939-1945; the U.S. didn't see economic prosperity until after the war. Not all economic growth necessarily means a country is going to be prosperous.

And it was a time where America's economic competitors were on their knees. Europe was in rubbles - America's home front was largely untouched other than submarine interference with trade routes (which was happening before America was involved in the war) and Pearl Harbor, of course. So you had a nation rich in natural resources that had recently revamped it's infrastructure pretty heavily (thanks to the New Deal) and had an incredible manufacturing capacity (which had been boosted pretty significantly because of the war effort), and millions of young men leaving military life for civilian life and returning to the workforce. It was the perfect situation for America to thrive.

Did decreasing taxes boost corporate productivity? Sure, definitely, but at the same time there wasn't the need for a 94% tax on top earners anymore. I don't know for sure, but I'll Google it after I make the post - but I'm sure companies that were equivalent in stature to what Amazon is today paid more in taxes than Amazon will this year ($0, on $177,866,000,000 in total revenue in 2018).

What the U.S. is doing now is lowering already pretty low taxes... all while increasing spending. When $70 billion was added to the defense budget, nobody batted a fucking eyelid. Not only is it ideologically inconsistent with their "small government" stance (btw, it's weird that the small government people want to be able to tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies, who they can/cannot marry, shit like that)… but it makes a mockery of the stance of "Well sure the UK or Canada might have public healthcare, BuT hOw WiLl We PaY fOr It!" - it could be paid for by the $70 billion that the U.S. has tacked on to their already outrageous military spending. And the Federal Government could have more money at it's disposal without even changing individual tax rates simply by collecting money from corporations making billions that are contributing nothing to the U.S. treasury.

Honestly, it stuns me that so many of these "deficit hawks" from the Obama era were so keen to support low taxes and high spending. For the vast majority of them, it's pretty clear from their votes that the rhetoric was just a steaming pile of bullshit as their votes contribute to guarantee increasing the deficit considerably.

[Honey Honey]

On 07/03/2019 at 14:37, Cicero said:

The theory that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy as well as private market forces. The reduction of spending and marginal tax rates created low inflation and privatization led to a resurgence of large manufacturing corporations. 

This isn't applicable to a surplus, balanced budget maybe, surplus, no.

 

Anyway, two of the most important economic factors are missing from these discussioms. Oil and private finance. Governments don't deserve economic credit for that which they don't control.

[Dr. Gonzo]

28 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

This isn't applicable to a surplus, balanced budget maybe, surplus, no.

 

Anyway, two of the most important economic factors are missing from these discussioms. Oil and private finance. Governments don't deserve economic credit for that which they don't control.

Private finance is impacted by banking regulations though. For a lot of people the Great Depression wiped out almost everything they would have saved up.

I think the US repealed it’s Depression era banking regulations as well. So I’m sure that will cause some fun little problems in a little while.

Private finance has people reliant on banks and stocks, which has them reliant on government regulations. But you can also make the argument that banks and financial institutions have a disproportionate sway on the government compared to private individuals, and with that influence they in a sense regulate themselves. But if left unregulated, banks would just be fucking everyone over, so I don’t think you can say the government can’t take credit for that.

Oil also shaped the UK and US’s post-war foreign policy. Also pre-war foreign policy as well. I’m not sure you can make the argument that the US did nothing to control oil... oil’s dictated US and UK foreign policy in the post-war world in part to control the world’s oil production. And the US played it’s part in endling the British Empire with the Suez Crisis, thus really solidifying their place as the only western superpower which let them dictate western foreign policy. And aside from foreign oil, the U.S. has shitloads of its own oil fields (Los Angeles is basically built on oil fields, which I only learned recently).

I’m just not sure I agree that government can’t take credit for control over these two things. I think with the financial sector you can maybe make the argument that bankers can push the government around. Financial institutions can point to Brexit though to say they don’t in the UK (although the counterpoint there is that Brexit is a reaction to the wealth gap that these fuckers played a huge part in creating), but in the US there’s a better argument that financial institutions have much more influence over both political parties.

[Dr. Gonzo]

This one's just a bit ironic, I suppose: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/20/mexico-trump-border-wall-tijuana

An American homeless guy stole razorwire that was used to protect the border wall (not the "new" one that Trump wants to build, the one that's already there on the border between the two countries) and when down to Tijuana, selling that razorwire for people to protect their homes. So some Mexicans built walls for themselves and ultimately it was the U.S. government who really paid for it.

[Cicero]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This one's just a bit ironic, I suppose: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/20/mexico-trump-border-wall-tijuana

An American homeless guy stole razorwire that was used to protect the border wall (not the "new" one that Trump wants to build, the one that's already there on the border between the two countries) and when down to Tijuana, selling that razorwire for people to protect their homes. So some Mexicans built walls for themselves and ultimately it was the U.S. government who really paid for it.

Think the real irony were Mexicans building walls to protect themselves from people invading their home 

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Think the real irony were Mexicans building walls to protect themselves from people invading their home 

Tbf their country has been put on its knees by America’s drug addiction and the subsequent drug war. Tijuana is right on the border with San Diego and that means it’s on the front line for narcotrafficing. The people there have it rough when cartel members invade their homes to hide from the DEA, Mexican Federales, or rival drug traffickers.

U.S. drug policy reform would be an invisible wall that prevents crime and drugs from Mexico coming in.

[Harry]

Sounds like trump has achieved "Complete and Total EXONERRATION!" overnight in the Mueller report. 

A little bit unexpected given the details of Roger Stone's communication with wikileaks.