1) Wal-Mart destroyed TENS OF THOUSANDS of small businesses in America. Companies like Wal-Mart are why it takes 2 incomes to survive in America now.
2) Trickle down has always worked. The poor in America aren't obese with cell phones and cable television for no reason.
3) We don't need 5+ MILLION illegals every year to pick lettuce. We certainly don't need their millions of anchor babies to do anything.
4) Oil is a global commodity. If Texas did that companies would just buy oil from other states or other countries. Competition is a beautiful thing.
5) The UAW already completely destroyed the auto industry.
Anyone hoping for a depression is a f*cking idiot. People you lie about caring about will suffer right along with the people you want to punish for disagreeing with you.
I'll bite:
1. You're not wrong about Walmart. But, it succeeded by creating economies via increased scale and improved supply chain logistics-- in other words, via the pristine logic of capitalist innovation, of which I assume you approve. As for the thousands of small business destroyed, isn't that what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction", another essential feature of capitalist development? The employment those small businesses provided likely didn't pay any better than Walmart to begin with, AND, anyone working for them did not have cheaper goods from a place like Walmart to enable their incomes to go further. Again, the magic of capitalist logics at work.
2. You're right. Trickle down (supply side, growth first) economics don't work to actually improve them lives of workers. And why should they have? That was never their intent. Their intent was to produce the best of all economic worlds via the above rationality, which is not necessarily a nice one for workers. But this does not mean that protectionism will meet the needs of American workers any more effectively, not least because it may increase the cost of living for wage earners without producing a commensurate or greater increase in employment and income. The point is, you're either in capitalism-- which means following its rules re: the centrality of markets-- or you're out. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are affronts to market rationality.
3. We're about to find out just how central illegal immigrant labor is to the 21st C US economy. (And please google that notorious socialist Milton Friedman on the value of illegal workers to the US economy). In fact, I'm calling it right now: Trump's "mass deportation" will carve out an exemption for agricultural laborers. It's either that or the threatened US tariffs on Mexico (supplier of 50% of the US's fresh produce) are a complete bluff. Because you can't have both deportation of agricultural workers and potentially more expensive produce from Mexico (most Mexican producers would probably go out of business before trying to eat a 25% tariff. No way they have the margins for that.) A tariff on Mexican produce will only work (i.e. in a non-inflationary way) if US domestic producers can scale up and claim the market share lost by Mexican producers-- hard to do when their workforce is being deported wholesale!
4. The obvious alternatives to Texas oil would be Canadian or Venezuelan. We'll see about Venezuela, but Trump has threatened Canada with 25% across the board tariffs.
5. The US auto industry does what it does, which is to try to make a profit. History informs us that it will try to this with or without creating jobs for American workers. Industrial labor employment is ALWAYS doomed to obsolescence no matter what workers do. And since workers are not protected from the loss of their employment to offshoring or automation, it makes the most sense for them to get as much as they can while they still can. This is a catch-22, but then everything about capitalistics is a catch-22.
You're not stupid. You are just caught up in the very real bind of trying to defend both nationalism in its M@GA instantiation AND capitalism. No kind of conservative fusionism (this one between the interests of capitalist oligarchs and trad Catholic Natcons) can solve capitalism's basic contradictions.
As for sticking it to the likes of Apple, it's interesting that you would imply the best way to do this is through tariffs on Chinese goods rather than through the much more obvious way of taxing or breaking them up entirely, which I can't find anywhere in the M@GA agenda, interestingly.
You will notice Winston is subtly starting to argue that higher prices are better. He knows what’s coming
1. You're not wrong about Walmart. But, it succeeded by creating economies via increased scale and improved supply chain logistics-- in other words, via the pristine logic of capitalist innovation, of which I assume you approve. As for the thousands of small business destroyed, isn't that what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction", another essential feature of capitalist development? The employment those small businesses provided likely didn't pay any better than Walmart to begin with, AND, anyone working for them did not have cheaper goods from a place like Walmart to enable their incomes to go further. Again, the magic of capitalist logics at work.
2. You're right. Trickle down (supply side, growth first) economics don't work to actually improve them lives of workers. And why should they have? That was never their intent. Their intent was to produce the best of all economic worlds via the above rationality, which is not necessarily a nice one for workers. But this does not mean that protectionism will meet the needs of American workers any more effectively, not least because it may increase the cost of living for wage earners without producing a commensurate or greater increase in employment and income. The point is, you're either in capitalism-- which means following its rules re: the centrality of markets-- or you're out. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are affronts to market rationality.
3. We're about to find out just how central illegal immigrant labor is to the 21st C US economy. (And please google that notorious socialist Milton Friedman on the value of illegal workers to the US economy). In fact, I'm calling it right now: Trump's "mass deportation" will carve out an exemption for agricultural laborers. It's either that or the threatened US tariffs on Mexico (supplier of 50% of the US's fresh produce) are a complete bluff. Because you can't have both deportation of agricultural workers and potentially more expensive produce from Mexico (most Mexican producers would probably go out of business before trying to eat a 25% tariff. No way they have the margins for that.) A tariff on Mexican produce will only work (i.e. in a non-inflationary way) if US domestic producers can scale up and claim the market share lost by Mexican producers-- hard to do when their workforce is being deported wholesale!
4. The obvious alternatives to Texas oil would be Canadian or Venezuelan. We'll see about Venezuela, but Trump has threatened Canada with 25% across the board tariffs.
5. The US auto industry does what it does, which is to try to make a profit. History informs us that it will try to this with or without creating jobs for American workers. Industrial labor employment is ALWAYS doomed to obsolescence no matter what workers do. And since workers are not protected from the loss of their employment to offshoring or automation, it makes the most sense for them to get as much as they can while they still can. This is a catch-22, but then everything about capitalistics is a catch-22.
You're not stupid. You are just caught up in the very real bind of trying to defend both nationalism in its M@GA instantiation AND capitalism. No kind of conservative fusionism (this one between the interests of capitalist oligarchs and trad Catholic Natcons) can solve capitalism's basic contradictions.
As for sticking it to the likes of Apple, it's interesting that you would imply the best way to do this is through tariffs on Chinese goods rather than through the much more obvious way of taxing or breaking them up entirely, which I can't find anywhere in the M@GA agenda, interestingly.
You will notice Winston is subtly starting to argue that higher prices are better. He knows what’s coming
yeah along the same lines, soon Republicans will be saying 'a recession is good in the long run'
1. You're not wrong about Walmart. But, it succeeded by creating economies via increased scale and improved supply chain logistics-- in other words, via the pristine logic of capitalist innovation, of which I assume you approve. As for the thousands of small business destroyed, isn't that what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction", another essential feature of capitalist development? The employment those small businesses provided likely didn't pay any better than Walmart to begin with, AND, anyone working for them did not have cheaper goods from a place like Walmart to enable their incomes to go further. Again, the magic of capitalist logics at work.
2. You're right. Trickle down (supply side, growth first) economics don't work to actually improve them lives of workers. And why should they have? That was never their intent. Their intent was to produce the best of all economic worlds via the above rationality, which is not necessarily a nice one for workers. But this does not mean that protectionism will meet the needs of American workers any more effectively, not least because it may increase the cost of living for wage earners without producing a commensurate or greater increase in employment and income. The point is, you're either in capitalism-- which means following its rules re: the centrality of markets-- or you're out. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are affronts to market rationality.
3. We're about to find out just how central illegal immigrant labor is to the 21st C US economy. (And please google that notorious socialist Milton Friedman on the value of illegal workers to the US economy). In fact, I'm calling it right now: Trump's "mass deportation" will carve out an exemption for agricultural laborers. It's either that or the threatened US tariffs on Mexico (supplier of 50% of the US's fresh produce) are a complete bluff. Because you can't have both deportation of agricultural workers and potentially more expensive produce from Mexico (most Mexican producers would probably go out of business before trying to eat a 25% tariff. No way they have the margins for that.) A tariff on Mexican produce will only work (i.e. in a non-inflationary way) if US domestic producers can scale up and claim the market share lost by Mexican producers-- hard to do when their workforce is being deported wholesale!
4. The obvious alternatives to Texas oil would be Canadian or Venezuelan. We'll see about Venezuela, but Trump has threatened Canada with 25% across the board tariffs.
5. The US auto industry does what it does, which is to try to make a profit. History informs us that it will try to this with or without creating jobs for American workers. Industrial labor employment is ALWAYS doomed to obsolescence no matter what workers do. And since workers are not protected from the loss of their employment to offshoring or automation, it makes the most sense for them to get as much as they can while they still can. This is a catch-22, but then everything about capitalistics is a catch-22.
You're not stupid. You are just caught up in the very real bind of trying to defend both nationalism in its M@GA instantiation AND capitalism. No kind of conservative fusionism (this one between the interests of capitalist oligarchs and trad Catholic Natcons) can solve capitalism's basic contradictions.
As for sticking it to the likes of Apple, it's interesting that you would imply the best way to do this is through tariffs on Chinese goods rather than through the much more obvious way of taxing or breaking them up entirely, which I can't find anywhere in the M@GA agenda, interestingly.
You will notice Winston is subtly starting to argue that higher prices are better. He knows what’s coming
*Narrator: "It's important to remember that literally every prediction Harambe has ever made has been wrong"
You can call it pedantic but I am fundamentally disagreeing with your “tariffs are stupid” point. As for who is responsible and post-WW2 wars, it’s the US and NATO that is the biggest bully and culprit on the international stage. We are arguably a reason for other countries to be super wary of us and find ways to shield themselves from the geopolitical bully we are.
You can blame the Republican Party all you want (and I truly don’t care about partisan loyalty), but geopolitics is not an area where it matters which party is in power. FWIW, even on tariffs, Biden retained most of Trump’s.
Sounds like we are agreed that nato and the us are responsible for the greatest surge of wealth and prosperity and lifespan extension in human history, 1945-2024.
Partly from science, but also from nato and the us creating system of rules and norms that have greatly raised living standards.
id like to keep this going. Unfortunately the Republican Party does not
No, we fundamentally disagree. How reading comprehension challenged can you be?
1) Wal-Mart destroyed TENS OF THOUSANDS of small businesses in America. Companies like Wal-Mart are why it takes 2 incomes to survive in America now.
2) Trickle down has always worked. The poor in America aren't obese with cell phones and cable television for no reason.
3) We don't need 5+ MILLION illegals every year to pick lettuce. We certainly don't need their millions of anchor babies to do anything.
4) Oil is a global commodity. If Texas did that companies would just buy oil from other states or other countries. Competition is a beautiful thing.
5) The UAW already completely destroyed the auto industry.
Anyone hoping for a depression is a f*cking idiot. People you lie about caring about will suffer right along with the people you want to punish for disagreeing with you.
I'll bite:
1. You're not wrong about Walmart. But, it succeeded by creating economies via increased scale and improved supply chain logistics-- in other words, via the pristine logic of capitalist innovation, of which I assume you approve. As for the thousands of small business destroyed, isn't that what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction", another essential feature of capitalist development? The employment those small businesses provided likely didn't pay any better than Walmart to begin with, AND, anyone working for them did not have cheaper goods from a place like Walmart to enable their incomes to go further. Again, the magic of capitalist logics at work.
2. You're right. Trickle down (supply side, growth first) economics don't work to actually improve them lives of workers. And why should they have? That was never their intent. Their intent was to produce the best of all economic worlds via the above rationality, which is not necessarily a nice one for workers. But this does not mean that protectionism will meet the needs of American workers any more effectively, not least because it may increase the cost of living for wage earners without producing a commensurate or greater increase in employment and income. The point is, you're either in capitalism-- which means following its rules re: the centrality of markets-- or you're out. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are affronts to market rationality.
3. We're about to find out just how central illegal immigrant labor is to the 21st C US economy. (And please google that notorious socialist Milton Friedman on the value of illegal workers to the US economy). In fact, I'm calling it right now: Trump's "mass deportation" will carve out an exemption for agricultural laborers. It's either that or the threatened US tariffs on Mexico (supplier of 50% of the US's fresh produce) are a complete bluff. Because you can't have both deportation of agricultural workers and potentially more expensive produce from Mexico (most Mexican producers would probably go out of business before trying to eat a 25% tariff. No way they have the margins for that.) A tariff on Mexican produce will only work (i.e. in a non-inflationary way) if US domestic producers can scale up and claim the market share lost by Mexican producers-- hard to do when their workforce is being deported wholesale!
4. The obvious alternatives to Texas oil would be Canadian or Venezuelan. We'll see about Venezuela, but Trump has threatened Canada with 25% across the board tariffs.
5. The US auto industry does what it does, which is to try to make a profit. History informs us that it will try to this with or without creating jobs for American workers. Industrial labor employment is ALWAYS doomed to obsolescence no matter what workers do. And since workers are not protected from the loss of their employment to offshoring or automation, it makes the most sense for them to get as much as they can while they still can. This is a catch-22, but then everything about capitalistics is a catch-22.
You're not stupid. You are just caught up in the very real bind of trying to defend both nationalism in its M@GA instantiation AND capitalism. No kind of conservative fusionism (this one between the interests of capitalist oligarchs and trad Catholic Natcons) can solve capitalism's basic contradictions.
As for sticking it to the likes of Apple, it's interesting that you would imply the best way to do this is through tariffs on Chinese goods rather than through the much more obvious way of taxing or breaking them up entirely, which I can't find anywhere in the M@GA agenda, interestingly.
SB,
Good response and noted. I am 100% AGAINST tariffs.
The poster using washing machines is another simple example why tariffs don't work. Also applicable to my UAW example.
Housing industry will crash due to increase in lumber cost.
History has shown protectionalism doesn't work.
Trump is a Casino owner. It's his job to steal every penny you have. The "low income" earners think Trump has the answer. But they are his "mark".
1. You're not wrong about Walmart. But, it succeeded by creating economies via increased scale and improved supply chain logistics-- in other words, via the pristine logic of capitalist innovation, of which I assume you approve. As for the thousands of small business destroyed, isn't that what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction", another essential feature of capitalist development? The employment those small businesses provided likely didn't pay any better than Walmart to begin with, AND, anyone working for them did not have cheaper goods from a place like Walmart to enable their incomes to go further. Again, the magic of capitalist logics at work.
2. You're right. Trickle down (supply side, growth first) economics don't work to actually improve them lives of workers. And why should they have? That was never their intent. Their intent was to produce the best of all economic worlds via the above rationality, which is not necessarily a nice one for workers. But this does not mean that protectionism will meet the needs of American workers any more effectively, not least because it may increase the cost of living for wage earners without producing a commensurate or greater increase in employment and income. The point is, you're either in capitalism-- which means following its rules re: the centrality of markets-- or you're out. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are affronts to market rationality.
3. We're about to find out just how central illegal immigrant labor is to the 21st C US economy. (And please google that notorious socialist Milton Friedman on the value of illegal workers to the US economy). In fact, I'm calling it right now: Trump's "mass deportation" will carve out an exemption for agricultural laborers. It's either that or the threatened US tariffs on Mexico (supplier of 50% of the US's fresh produce) are a complete bluff. Because you can't have both deportation of agricultural workers and potentially more expensive produce from Mexico (most Mexican producers would probably go out of business before trying to eat a 25% tariff. No way they have the margins for that.) A tariff on Mexican produce will only work (i.e. in a non-inflationary way) if US domestic producers can scale up and claim the market share lost by Mexican producers-- hard to do when their workforce is being deported wholesale!
4. The obvious alternatives to Texas oil would be Canadian or Venezuelan. We'll see about Venezuela, but Trump has threatened Canada with 25% across the board tariffs.
5. The US auto industry does what it does, which is to try to make a profit. History informs us that it will try to this with or without creating jobs for American workers. Industrial labor employment is ALWAYS doomed to obsolescence no matter what workers do. And since workers are not protected from the loss of their employment to offshoring or automation, it makes the most sense for them to get as much as they can while they still can. This is a catch-22, but then everything about capitalistics is a catch-22.
You're not stupid. You are just caught up in the very real bind of trying to defend both nationalism in its M@GA instantiation AND capitalism. No kind of conservative fusionism (this one between the interests of capitalist oligarchs and trad Catholic Natcons) can solve capitalism's basic contradictions.
As for sticking it to the likes of Apple, it's interesting that you would imply the best way to do this is through tariffs on Chinese goods rather than through the much more obvious way of taxing or breaking them up entirely, which I can't find anywhere in the M@GA agenda, interestingly.
Nationalism is just common sense.
As for the rest fair trade is the objective not just free trade.
And no one wants unchecked capitalism.
We'll see just how much Americans are willing to pay for the "common sense" of economic nationalism (or any other kind, for that matter).
There's no fair or unfair trade. Trade is either free or its fettered. Again, capitalism: You're in or you're out. Capital has no nation, by definition.
Lots of people want unchecked capitalism-- but only when they think it will benefit them (e.g. companies want free labor markets but also subsidies and other protections, like tariffs). The politics start over who or what is doing the "checking". The UAW wants "checked" capitalism that favors higher wages (but you think this "killed" the auto industry), whereas US steel producers want capitalism "checked" in ways that protect it from competition from foreign firms.
Again, there is no way out of this bind but to call capitalism itself into question. "National capitalism" is an explosive contradiction. It leads to world wars-- the violent abrogation of all economic rationality.
Tons of people have called Trump out for lying about tariffs. You will see a thread on the front page of reddit every day about it for instance. If you consume media from the conservative bubble, you are isolated from opinions like these and will rarely ever see them.
As for the rest fair trade is the objective not just free trade.
And no one wants unchecked capitalism.
We'll see just how much Americans are willing to pay for the "common sense" of economic nationalism (or any other kind, for that matter).
There's no fair or unfair trade. Trade is either free or its fettered. Again, capitalism: You're in or you're out. Capital has no nation, by definition.
Lots of people want unchecked capitalism-- but only when they think it will benefit them (e.g. companies want free labor markets but also subsidies and other protections, like tariffs). The politics start over who or what is doing the "checking". The UAW wants "checked" capitalism that favors higher wages (but you think this "killed" the auto industry), whereas US steel producers want capitalism "checked" in ways that protect it from competition from foreign firms.
Again, there is no way out of this bind but to call capitalism itself into question. "National capitalism" is an explosive contradiction. It leads to world wars-- the violent abrogation of all economic rationality.
That's a pretty simplistic view of things.
You can strive to make trade as fair as possible while trying to keep the government's finger off the scale as much as possible. Unchecked capitalism is 1 global monopoly that dominates every single market. No one wants that.
The UAW killed the auto industry by putting the short term best interest of the union ahead of the long term best interest of the union. And they certainly never gave a damn about the best interest of the auto industry itself.
Capitalism has many flaws but it's still far and away better for more people than any other system out there.
"I'm a lib, I know how anything and everything works, I'm morally superior to you, and if you don't capitulate to my narcissism, I will call you buzzwords and treat you like scum."
"I'm a lib, I know how anything and everything works, I'm morally superior to you, and if you don't capitulate to my narcissism, I will call you buzzwords and treat you like scum."
"I'm a lib, I know how anything and everything works, I'm morally superior to you, and if you don't capitulate to my narcissism, I will call you buzzwords and treat you like scum."
"I'm a lib, I know how anything and everything works, I'm morally superior to you, and if you don't capitulate to my narcissism, I will call you buzzwords and treat you like scum."
Sounds like Winnie
If you've been paying attention "Winnie" only treats people like that after they've displayed that moral superiority and the buzzwords.
"I'm a lib, I know how anything and everything works, I'm morally superior to you, and if you don't capitulate to my narcissism, I will call you buzzwords and treat you like scum."
I mean it’s better than being a dumb conservative
Problem for you being the dumbest conservatives are still right and you're still wrong in your ivory tower of self-worship.
Problem for you being the dumbest conservatives are still right and you're still wrong in your ivory tower of self-worship.
I am an elitist, yes, because the alternative is supporting people like you. Raging for hours a day after your side won the big election. What would it take for you at peace?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.