You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP. — Agustino

Trump's trade war will boost GDP in the long term? According to what economic model? According to what evidence? Fantastical statements like this just make you sound uninformed. But OK, if you really believe this I'll bite: if by the end of the year overall growth is four per cent or more I'll post a picture of myself here in this discussion wearing a MAGA hat. If it falls more than half a per cent short of that, you post a picture of yourself with an "I Love Hillary" speech bubble coming out of your mouth. OK? Or is this just hot air?

We need banks. They just need to be properly regulated. Where are the funds for entrepreneurship going to come from if not banks?

The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. — Agustino

Thank you for being a voice of reason Agustino. If we can get employers to believe in hiring people for more than 30 hours a week, without government penalty, those going from part time to full time would sky rocket. The results are amazing when something is suggested as norm and followed for decades, as opposed to an arbitrary number being assigned to companies whose structure might not be the traditional model, so therefore a blanket force to buy a government product fails, miserably.

But not without first doing irreversible damage to the American medical community before ceasing to exist. :shade:

What a cluster fuck of "no one knows what anyone else is doing anymore". They just know it is not their responsibility.
(medical rant over for now)

@raza

Six replies? A single reply would've sufficed. So, do you acknowledge any of the political errors I raised as political errors, or are you still in denial? I don't expect Superman. That's just silly. Like others, I was just curious about the length you're willing to go to in order to avoid admitting to error.

We need banks — Baden

I need a bank that hands out samples. :pray:

Why should it trickle down? — Agustino

Do you remember when you used to call yourself a socialist?

Do you remember when you used to call yourself a socialist? — Sapientia

May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is?

Even right wing capitalists at least pay lip service to the idea that economic growth should benefit the majority as the majority play a part in producing that growth at every level. @Agustino unfortunately seems to be stuck in the fantasy that it is only businessmen like him that matter and should get all the benefits from society while everyone else simply bows down and thanks them for their brilliance. Of course the rub is that when inflation outpaces wages growth for long enough due to this randonomics type approach, Agu's wage slaves won't be able to buy his stuff any more.

The deeper problem Agu is that your philosophy is morally warped. Entrepreneurs are not better in some objective way than other people such that they deserve to hog the spoils of economic growth. They are simply players in a system that can either distribute its benefits rationally for the greater good, as democratic socialists would like, or that can feed the avarice that you and those of your political ilk would espouse. The fact is that those who like doing business should be thankful society is set up in such a way that they can follow their passion and that and enough material wealth to satisfy a rational serving of needs should be enough. So, basta! Insisting that you not only get enough to meet your needs but so much that you deprive others of enough to meet their needs in order to serve you is not only morally reprehensible but economically illiterate.

I won't speak for Sapientia, but I think the essence of socialism is summed up most succinctly in the words of JC.

"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."

Luke 3:11

I personally think Jesus goes a bit far on this one if you're to take it literally, but I think the spirit of it at least should be integrated into government policy. And that is "Do not distribute an excess that would cause a deficiency on the other end. That's neither good for those who are forced into deficiency (suffering) or those who are given the excess (greed)". And that's diametrically opposed to the Randian approach of the likes of Agu and Trump whose policies if brought to their logical conclusion would eventually result in an irreversible polarization of society into a majority with less than they need (the deficient) and a tiny minority with much more than they need (the greedy). Result=a state of social disintegration and unrest that would likely result in the breakdown of democracy.

I won't speak for Sapientia, but I think the essence of socialism is summed up most succinctly in the words of JC. — Baden

Ohhhhhhh, Jer-em-eeey Corrrrr-byn.

"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."

Luke 3:11 — Baden

Oh, the other JC.

:lol: Aren't they the basically the same person/god? :halo:

May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've been thinking lately that this may deserve its own thread.

Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc. — Agustino

Why is the primary "point" of the economy to offer opportunities for entrepreneurs? Instead of, say, to ensure that people have affordable access to basic needs and wants. Why do you assume that economic inequality and financial uncertainty provide greater opportunity to start a business despite greater risks? When you say you want to create a society in which people takes chances that are "worth the risk", what would the alternative be to not taking a risk? This seems like veiled socio-economic Darwinism.

Six replies? A single reply would've sufficed. So, do you acknowledge any of the political errors I raised as political errors, or are you still in denial? I don't expect Superman. That's just silly. Like others, I was just curious about the length you're willing to go to in order to avoid admitting to error — Sapientia

I have defined what an “error” is more than once. It is expected when one tries to do something. Greater wins over smaller losses are obviously a reasonable measure of success. Wins on things of greater importance over losses on things of lesser importance also is a reasonable measure of success.


There is also the common strategy of pushing for something greater than you were prepared to accept in order for there to be a possibility of gaining more than you would have taken. Same strategy is used on the floor of an auction.

Even to a media audience one has to be prepared to be mocked while keeping one’s victories private - a victory such as that achieved as demonstrated by the “auction floor” analogy.

Not seeing these factors is being simplistic.

those going from part time to full time would sky rocket — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Full Time is an arbitrary concept. It used to be 60 hours. Thanks to progress that went down. As far as I am concerned 2 hours per day would be perfect.

I have defined what an “error” is more than once. — raza

I know. That's how our discussion started, remember? I took issue with the definition that you presented at the time.

Greater wins over smaller losses are obviously a reasonable measure of success. Wins on things of greater importance over losses on things of lesser importance also is a reasonable measure of success.


There is also the common strategy of pushing for something greater than you were prepared to accept in order for there to be a possibility of gaining more than you would have taken. Same strategy is used on the floor of an auction.

Even to a media audience one has to be prepared to be mocked while keeping one’s victories private - a victory such as that achieved as demonstrated by the “auction floor” analogy.

Not seeing these factors is being simplistic. — raza

I don't see an answer to my question in all of that. Errors? Yes, no, or don't know?

Rudy Giuliani Stuns Fox News Hosts With Rambling Account Of Trump Tower Meetings

Giuliani later added: “Second, there was another meeting that has been leaked but hasn’t been in public yet,” he continued. “That was a meeting ― an alleged meeting ― three days before, according to Cohen ... he says there was a meeting with Donald Jr., with Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, with Gates and possibly two others, in which they ― out of the presence of the president ― discussed the meeting with the Russians. ... That meeting never, ever took place. It didn’t happen. It’s a figment of his imagination.”

Confused? You’re not the only one. Giuliani’s clarification prompted a series of inquiries from the Fox News co-hosts.

“Why are you saying that the president wasn’t at the meeting?” Francis asked. “Who asked if he was there? No one asked if he was there.”

“Cohen is alleging the meeting took place,” Giuliani responded. “We’re making it clear the president wasn’t at that meeting. Cohen doesn’t even allege that. To cut it off.”

But Francis continued to press him, “It’s different to say that meeting didn’t happen ... but to say he wasn’t there implies that it happened.”

OK guys, so Trump wasn't at this meeting that never happened. Only Jr. and Kushner and Manafort and others were at this meeting that never happened. Got it?

Giuliani is now admitting to collusion because they know they've been caught. There are presumably witnesses who can corroborate Cohen's story. So, the new line is not "There was no collusion" which we always suspected was a lie but that "Collusion isn't a crime". The next line will presumably be, OK, collusion is a crime, but the President can pardon himself or can't be subpoenaed, and so on etc. As an aside has anyone anywhere being pursued on such a serious issue been represented by such a bumbling defense? It's very...odd.

The next line will presumably be, OK, collusion is a crime, but the President can pardon himself or can't be subpoenaed, and so on etc. — Baden

Yeah, it'll be "Presidents can't be indicted" followed by the Republicans in Congress with "we're not going to impeach him because it looks bad on us" and then Republican voters with "I don't give a shit because he's on my team".

It's even worse than that. People have been making the circumstantial case for a little while that Trump attended the meeting via speakerphone. Giuliani essentially confirmed this hunch today when he emphatically denied that Trump physically attended the meeting but refused to say point blank that he did not attend the meeting.

No matter what happens, it will be a deep state conspiracy, a political witch-hunt instigated by Democrats who have infiltrated the FBI and Justice. It's truly National Enquirer stuff, out there with UFOs and other conspiracy-theory rubbish, but this is the level that Trump has managed to bring the Presidency down to. Those who look the very worst are the Republicans who are aiding and abetting this flagrant nonsense - Ryan and McConnell, in particular, but also appointed officials like Pompeo, Kelly and Mattis.

Well, the cats out of the bag, so let's see how this ends for Trump... If anything Don Jr. is going to get a bad reality check along with Jared Kushner.

A stupid bet to make. The tariffs are going to be charged to customers which ostensibly increases GDP as prices go up.

Here's some Adam Smith to hopefully cure the misconception that tariffs are a good idea :

If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. […] The value of [a country’s] annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce [by trade policies]. […] The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation. — Adam Smith

And

When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. — Adam Smith

In Smith's time his work led to the gradual repeal of tariffs. But I'm sure it has its populist appeal, the idea that you're punishing those evil foreigners.

If you think GDP is going to hit 4% in the US for this year by year's end, I'll happily make the bet with you too before you get committed to the economic insane asylum. What shall we put in your speech bubble?

Agree the rest of what you said though.

Collusion isn't a crime for the president or the campaign. That's a legal term in the arena of price/wage fixing. Conspiracy against the United States most certainly is. The press jumped on the term "collusion" early on, and have never really corrected it. May be better if they don't.

The irony here is that all the defenses that are being bandied about are conspiracy theories. That being said, why does it seem so hard for Trump supporters to acknowledge the evidence which points more and more to an actual conspiracy?

I'll join this bet. If the average GDP hits 4% or higher for the year then I'll do something I dunno

Is Rudy money hungry and starved for fame so much that he could be working for the other side?

I mean, it doesn't seem like he's provided much help in the legal sense to Trump. In the public domain, maybe so, but public opinion will not be what decides Trump's guilt or innocence.

:cool: Shave all your hair off and glue on a blonde wig in deference to the Trump-in-chief? Could be anything really because those numbers ain't gonna happen.