Meanwhile, the Fed argues rates should be historically low and the money supply should grow to stimulate the economy because their old fashioned stochastic models tell them rational actors would then spend their money. Turns out people have actual goals in mind when saving so the savings rate still goes up! Fucking dinosaurs still don't understand stochastic models aren't sufficient to model a complex world.

Actors that intentionally mislead the public perception regarding the value and/or scarcity of a share often do so with the sole aim of creating popular public belief that the (company)stock itself is more valuable than it is...

'Artificial demand'.

Another public disservice. The whole economy thing is completely beside the point I'm now making, well aside from the economy not being a reliable indicator for the overall quality of American lives.

American people ought be able to put their natural talents and skills to good use by virtue of helping in some small way to provide a public service to the community at large while simultaneously earning a decent living. There are necessary tasks to perform which could utilize a wide swathe of different talents and skill sets.

We create the socioeconomic landscape, and there is no excuse for not providing one that realizes the best outcomes for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

None.

There is no excuse for allowing anyone to wield the sort of power over American citizens that is being wielded by those who have no intent or goal of doing what's best for everyday American citizens.

None.

Power over people is acquired in only one of two ways. It's either usurped or granted by consent. If the consent was manufactured by an insincere speaker, then it much better qualifies as usurpation.

American people have had their own power to cast a well informed vote taken from them by many people across the board on so many different levels for a very very long time. Each and every media outlet that has secured the rights to have public discourse about public elections ought have the solemn responsibility of accurately reporting what's happened and/or is happening.

The stark reality is that they all have a restricted freedom to discuss daily events using a particular narrative flavor. Some of them do not even write their own script. Others are like lemmings.

Another public disservice.

Melissa Harris Perry refused to be a mouthpiece. She paid for her freedom of speech with her very own financial livelihood.

Company bybacks... company sell offs...

Disservices.

People talking about the economy as though it is a reliable indicator for the quality of your average American Joe's life and/or livelihood. It's not.

Disservices.

(My rules for staying out of poverty:

1) Don't have children
2) Don't get married.

It's that easy.) — Baden

Rather strange rules, Baden.

How about:

1) study in school and get an education
2) find work and work
3) if there aren't job opportunities in your neighborhood, move
4) save & invest

What is so wrong about being in a stable relationship and having children? It's being single that truly sucks, not having a spouse and offspring in your life.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek there.

Back to talking about Sanders:
There's been a lot of general blah di blah in the news about how Biden versus Sanders compares regarding electibility against Trump.

This recent Newsweek article suggests that they're actually pretty much tied in that regard (less than a point difference being well within the margin of error):

https://www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.newsweek.com/what-polls-say-about-donald-trump-vs-joe-biden-election-1491230?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15839338809752&amp_ct=1583933891072&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fwhat-polls-say-about-donald-trump-vs-joe-biden-election-1491230

The reason why I do this is because microeconomic and personal decisions (say, regarding addiction for instance) affect everyone. They do so in often a direct and concrete way. There is also way, way more consensus on personal finance. The choices are an every day thing, and everyone must deal with them. This is just how I view things. — BitconnectCarlos

It's how I view things too, Carlos. But, as you know, it's only one part of an important issue. The other part is to ask what effect the environment has on individual choices and responsibility. The environment includes: housing, income, access to healthcare, education, food, etc., and the quality of these resources, filtering systems, laws, discrimination, tax codes, judicial bias (if you're rich, it's a slap on the wrist; if you're poor [whether white or black] you get 10 years), drug polices (and others) that disproportionately effect poor and minority communities, and on and on.

These are all very real factors as well, some glaringly obvious just in the statistics alone.

I'm sure you recognize all of this. What exposes what I believe to be your faulty assumptions is the way you emphasize one side of the equation while minimizing the other side, which is at least equally as important. In my view, if you spent a little more time looking into this other side, you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

And let me be clear: this should NOT be justification for victimization, infantilization, and helplessness. "The system made me do it!" is not a slogan I endorse. But I also acknowledge that the game is, in fact, tilted.

148 delegates behind...

This recent Newsweek article suggests that they're actually pretty much tied in that regard (less than a point difference being well within the margin of error): — Artemis

The article also notes that national polls are misleading. The most relevant polls are those of battleground states.

Bernie has two electibility problems:
1) he's dependent on a high turnout from his base. This has not occurred in the primaries, so there's not much reason to think it would occur in the general election.
2) his policies are strongly appealing to some, but strongly repelling to others. Those who are repelled will be motivated to vote against him. This is akin to Hillary- a lot of people simply didn't like her, so they voted against her ( as opposed to voting FOR Trump). That phenomenon isn't clear in the polls that have been conducted.

Ok, my bad.

The tone is sometimes hard to get through the internet.

(Especially when there are several anti-natalism threads on the forum.)

Biden has an electibilty problem list as long as my arm.

:rofl:

Dementia, for one.

Biden has an electibilty problem list as long as my arm.

Dementia, for one. — Artemis

I don't see how the perception that he has dementia would affect any votes, since the case can be made for Trump as well. For example, see this.

don't see how the perception that he has dementia would affect any votes, since the case can be made for Trump as well. — Relativist

Trump may be insane, but he doesn't have dementia.

Are you saying teenage pregnancy is not a problem? The overarching idea here - and this really shouldn't be particularly contentious - is that people should wait until they're older and more financially secure (and ideally married as well) - before they commit to having children. Even 21 seems very young to me. — BitconnectCarlos

Teenage pregnancy is at record lows so not, it's not really relevant vis-à-vis poverty

Trump may be insane, but he doesn't have dementia. — Artemis

I'm glad you made that excellent point! Why would anyone vote for a guy with dementia when we can instead give the crazy guy 4 more years?

Do you have a child? Would you like them getting pregnant at 17? Clearly since this is a non-issue you should be fine with it.

Why would anyone vote for a guy with dementia when we can instead give the crazy guy 4 more years? — Relativist

"He's so crazy it might just work!"
VS
"I feel bad for the tired, weak old guy who can't remember how he started a sentence by the time he gets to the end of it."

Do you have a child? Would you like them getting pregnant at 17? Clearly since this is a non-issue you should be fine with it. — BitconnectCarlos

This is where the shit and brain emojis would have come in handy

I can tell none of this matters to you and it's entirely theoretical. Try coming back to the issue when an issue like this actually matters in reality.

"He's so crazy it might just work!"
VS
"I feel bad for the tired, weak old guy who can't remember how he started a sentence by the time he gets to the end of it." — Artemis

The people who believe "He's so crazy it might just work!" will vote for Trump in any case. I'm not sure that goes much beyond his base. Some others are looking for an alternative to the crazy one, and will rationalize the alleged mental incapacity of the alternative. For example this Republican.

Another flaw in your theory: why have Democrats (so far) voted for the candidate with dementia rather than the one who has neither dementia nor craziness?

I can tell none of this matters to you and it's entirely theoretical. Try coming back to the issue when an issue like this actually matters in reality. — BitconnectCarlos

ok lemme know when that happens!

Bernie has two electibility problems: — Relativist

Bernie has one electability problem...

Enough people are saying the same things and in doing so are perpetuating a fraud. Knowingly or unknowingly... it doesn't matter. Netiher is acceptable. Both are reprehensible.

What's stopping Bernie?

Common misconceptions.

A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate.

A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate. — creativesoul

Elections are far away.

Don't confuse the charade of a political party picking it's candidate to actual elections.

I think you missed this reply to you. I think the definition on which we should agree is "mixed economies".

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm very clearly talking about the effects government interference has on the operation of markets, not the oligopolistic competition, which is still a situation where the action of competitors matter.

In terms you're using I would say every economy in the world is a mixture of elements from free markets and command economies. To say the Netherlands or Finland are (unqualified) free market economies is simply incorrect. — Benkei

Fair enough. I think just have a slightly different emphasis or viewpoint.

Yet usually a modern "mixed economy" has at it's base a free market system and then a public sector. Not that the "free market" is an unofficial illegal black market. This point about mixed economies have to be understood especially when Americans think of European welfare states like Sweden (or Finland and Netherlands).

The point is actually important to understand especially when talking about modern social democracy and the agenda of politicians like Bernie Sanders. The agenda and objectives are nowhere close to a traditional Marxist-Leninist of the 20th Centur,y that was out there to do away with capitalism.

I'm not asking about the nationwide prevalence as compared to 30 years ago. I was asking if it happens is it a problem for that particular family? Similarly, when people marry younger those marriages tend not to last and divorce can be very expensive especially when there's kids. I'm in the military so we deal with these issues of young men wanting to get married super young and have kids extremely often and we advise them to hold off and get their finances in order as has been the advice for decades if not centuries now.

Another flaw in your theory: why have Democrats (so far) voted for the candidate with dementia rather than the one who has neither dementia nor craziness? — Relativist

It's a whoke The Emperor Has No Clothes thing. The news has been working hard to sell us the theory that Biden is more electible, and that voting for Sanders would mean a Trump win.

Therefore lots of people are voting for Biden in part because they think other people want to vote for Biden. It snowballs from there with each primary.

Your description suggests there is a free market system and a command economy existing next to each other. I'm not sure whether you mean that. But if you do, I think they really are intertwined in most instances. Regulatory licenses required to practise jobs or sell products are structural adjustments to the market, central bank rates are structural adjustments as well. Capital requirements likewise (and I could go on and on with respect to financial markets).

The post about the history of the corporation illustrates that the very "licensing" by government of corporations is a "command economy" measure that greatly affects the structure of the market. The most obvious one is that it affects market power. But so do the perpetual character of a corporation, its size and singular profit purpose.

We have too-big-to-fail banks (since the 80s) that actually get cheaper financing because of an implicit guarantee. We have corporations that are trying to buy a monopoly to then capitalise on that monopoly (see for instance: justeat and uber). There's no competition on "quality" in such cases. They just have such a ridiculous amount of capital they undercut the competition until it's dead and then cash in.

It's a whoke The Emperor Has No Clothes thing. The news has been working hard to sell us the theory that Biden is more electible, and that voting for Sanders would mean a Trump win.

Therefore lots of people are voting for Biden in part because they think other people want to vote for Biden. It snowballs from there with each primary. — Artemis

Yes, the theory that Biden is more electable has been pushed, including by me. I'm not lying; I actually believe it and I explained why. The only counters I saw were: a) the difference in electability was small ; b) Sanders inspires more passion, and this would induce more voter turnout.

(a) doesn't actually dispute it. (b) has not ben borne out in the primaries. There is no evidence that Bernie passion resulted in higher turnouts - even among his base.

Your description suggests there is a free market system and a command economy existing next to each other. I'm not sure whether you mean that. — Benkei

Perhaps it would be better to talk about "free market mechanism" than free market or free market system. That they are intertwined, sure, it can be so.

A good example is the real estate market. The prices are set by supple and demand, yet an official, city planner etc. can decide just to what purpose can the land be used, is it farmland or can you build a shopping center in the plot. Changes a lot the value of the real estate, yet the price you get is set by the market. (That is the government doesn't decide to buy it and defines the price)