Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[bearrock]

Iran is throwing their hat in the ring for Dems.  Any congress person voting against action is tantamount to treason right now.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/25/its-not-just-russians-anymore-iranians-others-turn-up-disinformation-efforts-ahead-vote/?utm_term=.535e29881553

 

Quote

A recent tweet from Alicia Hernan — whose Twitter account described her as a wife, mother and lover of peace — did not mince words about her feelings for President Trump: “That stupid moron doesn’t get that that by creating bad guys, spewing hate filled words and creating fear of ‘others’, his message is spreading to fanatics around the world. Or maybe he does.”

 

That March 16 tweet, directed to a Hawaii congressman, was not the work of an American voter venting her frustration. The account, “@AliciaHernan3,” was what disinformation researchers call a “sock puppet” — a type of fictitious online persona used by Russians when they were seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election.

 

But it was Iranians, not Russians, who created @AliciaHernan3, complete with a picture of a blonde woman with large, round-framed glasses and a turtleneck sweater. It was one of more than 7,000 phony accounts from Iran that Twitter has shut down this year alone.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Is it weird that i wish our actual allies would start interfering with our election?  Like ****ing help us out France. 

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Are you sure it is “impossible”?  The percentage of people living in poverty is steadily decreasing.

 

at the same time, the rich are getting richer. So the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer.... sure seems to me wealth is being created.

 

Have you even seen Star Trek?

 

Im not sure. You asked for a hypothesis. I’m open to hearing your reasons.

 

Well you edited parts of my post.  Given our current ability to access energy, it is impossible.  Yes, I'm sure.

 

Every year we access more of the Earth's resources and do so with more efficiency.  But the resources have always been there, and there is a limit to them.

 

The "pie" (of wealth) grows every year because we do a better job of getting more resources out of the Earth, but we aren't actually creating more resources, and there is a limit to the resources (energy and mass) the Earth has.  And beyond the Earth for the whole universe.

 

There is a maximal amount of wealth tied to the maximal amount of resources that exist and the  maximal efficiency that they can be utilized with.

 

Let's say you had a trust fund that was supposed to pay you out some value of gold ($X worth of gold) every year over some very long period of time.  But every year you used some legal wrangling to increase the value of gold you got out so it was more than the year before.  Every year you'd be getting more money.  But you wouldn't say you created wealth every year.  The trust fund only has so much gold in it.  You're just changing how much/well you are accessing that gold.

 

We're just accessing more of the total resources we can every year with more efficiency.

 

In terms of wages, remember the long term trend is for GDP to go up every year.

 

Then two charts for you.  stock prices/GDP.

 

 

(I know the wilkshire 5000 isn't a commonly used stock index, bu others show a similar thing.)

 

(Dow/GDP:

 

https://www.macrotrends.net/2574/dow-to-gdp-ratio-chart)

 

What you see is that the ratio is pretty steady.  It was down some in the 70s and 80s, but has come back.  As GDP has gone up, if I own stock, the values of my stock have gone up.  Generally, I've made money.

 

Now, certainly since I've started buying stock, buying stock has gotten easier.  I certainly don't do more work for stocks I own then ever, and I really do essentially any work after I've bought them.  But every year GDP goes up, I get more money.

 

Now, let's consider wages:

 

 

Real GDP (blue) is going up.  Real wages (organge) are not going up as fast.  As GDP goes up, the people that are actually doing more work every year are actually getting less of our economic growth.

 

The people that own stock are valuing more from the work that is being done to raise GDP than the people actually doing the work (starting in the 1970s).

 

Instead of paying the actual workers, companies are being able to keep that money to themselves (and increase their stock valuations).

 

Laws (and other things) have been changed in this country that make it harder for workers to organize and get increases in wages, while allowing companies to keep their money.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well you edited parts of my post. 

 

Are you really going to argue the difference “impossible” and “not physically possible”?

 

Quote

 

Given our current ability to access energy, it is impossible.  Yes, I'm sure.

 

Why limit the possibilities to the current situation? The economy isn’t static, seems odd to base your argument on a static case. Is the goal to move people out of poverty (which is something that is in the future) or to just give them money for this week?

 

Quote

Every year we access more of the Earth's resources and do so with more efficiency.  But the resources have always been there

 

I agree. The more efficiency part is where wealth is created.

 

Quote

 

The "pie" (of wealth) grows every year because we do a better job of getting more resources out of the Earth, but we aren't actually creating more resources,

 

No, but we are creating more wealth. 

 

Quote

 

 

and there is a limit to the resources (energy and mass) the Earth has.  And beyond the Earth for the whole universe.

 

This is irrelevant in our scope.

 

Quote

 

There is a maximal amount of wealth tied to the maximal amount of resources that exist and the  maximal efficiency that they can be utilized with.

 

In the 1200s the maximum amount of wealth that could be created from earths resources was quite small compared to today. Oil wasn’t even considered a resource. We had no way to get it, and no use for it. 

 

New technology was created and that gave us access to new resources that we previously didn’t have. Which led to wealth creation.  Are you arguing for finite technology?

 

Quote

 

Let's say you had a trust fund that was supposed to pay you out some value of gold ($X worth of gold) every year over some very long period of time.  But every year you used some legal wrangling to increase the value of gold you got out so it was more than the year before.  Every year you'd be getting more money.  But you wouldn't say you created wealth every year.  The trust fund only has so much gold in it.  You're just changing how much/well you are accessing that gold.

 

OK?  Now, here me out. Gold, right? In Alaska there was a lot of gold, however it wasn’t profitable to mine. Well, until Cat created machines that were large enough to move enough dirt to make mining profitable there. How well you are accessing the gold IS wealth creation. In this situation it allowed people to turn unprofitable land into mining operations.

 

Pushing paper doesn’t create wealth, I agree with you. But you are narrowing all of the examples you choose to pushing paper around a desk. That’s not what’s im talking about.

 

 

Quote

We're just accessing more of the total resources we can every year with more efficiency.

 

Yes, which creates wealth.

 

Quote

 

As GDP goes up, the people that are actually doing more work every year are actually getting less of our economic growth.

 

More work? I’m highly suspect of that claim... it’s Morley likely that technology is allowing them to do the same amount of work more efficiently.

 

Quote

The people that own stock are valuing more from the work that is being done to raise GDP than the people actually doing the work (starting in the 1970s).

 

Instead of paying the actual workers, companies are being able to keep that money to themselves (and increase their stock valuations).

 

Laws (and other things) have been changed in this country that make it harder for workers to organize and get increases in wages, while allowing companies to keep their money.

 

You can open up a trading account for free, 250 minimum deposit and 7 dollar trades.

 

 

Cry me a river. Although I suspect you are using this example it show wealth isn’t created. You can go off on what about x all you want but you are missing the macro point. 

 

Technology is wealth creation.

[Nerm]

I am totally crossing my fingers in hope that the interactions in this thread result  in a simple  physics equation that becomes "The unifying theory of money" that brings all humans into agreement.  Like e=mc2️⃣ for economic policy.  

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Are you arguing for finite technology?

 

More work? I’m highly suspect of that claim... it’s Morley likely that technology is allowing them to do the same amount of work more efficiently.

 

 

You can open up a trading account for free, 250 minimum deposit and 7 dollar trades.

 

 

Cry me a river. Although I suspect you are using this example it show wealth isn’t created. You can go off on what about x all you want but you are missing the macro point. 

 

Technology is wealth creation.

 

In terms of technology, yes, I've already clearly explained in another post ideas are finite.  Matter to make new technology is finite.  If ideas and matter are finite, technology clearly has to be finite.  What is designing and thinking about new technology if not pushing paper?  What (heavily) drives the creation of new technology and makes the people that design collect much of the wealth?  Patents.  What are patents if not paper?  (And I've already discussed/explained the importance of patents.)

 

You're creating boundaries that don't make any sense. 

 

What are Civil Rights laws if not paper?  But there's no doubt part of what has happened in this country is allowing African Americans to go to better schools and onto colleges has allowed them to get better jobs.  Civil rights laws and integration are an important part of the decrease in poverty in the African American community (and in the US).

 

(Same thing with changes in the traditional view of women and the opening of new careers to women.)

 

Pushing paper feeds the creation of new technology.  To claim that it is the technology that "creates" wealth and not the paper pushed behind it doesn't make any sense.   We are where we are because we've had a (reasonably) competent government, and government is mostly pushing papers.

 

The workers do work every year.  Once I buy the stock, I don't do any work.  I've got to put in (minimal) effort to buy it, and then do nothing.  Yet, when GDP goes up, I'm getting (essentially all of) the increase.  The workers that actually did the work to cause the increase are getting none of it.

 

Okay, but there are people that live pay check to pay check, and you'll clearly be behind somebody that inherits larger sums. of money  Right now it is easier to make money with money (through investing).  That's a recipe for continual growing income inequality and that's what we are seeing.  And it doesn't have to be that way, and it didn't used to be that way.  Workers used to get (more of) the increase in the GDP.

 

Look, I feel like you've just changed topics without ever acknowledging you've done so.  We were discussing why wages weren't growing.  You threw out some reasons why wages haven't grown.  I explained why you were wrong.  You said you would hear my opinions.  I've explained what I think.

 

And rather than say whether I'm right or wrong, you switch subjects slightly to well that isn't a big deal because people should buy stock.  Now, I'm left explaining why you are wrong, and it is a big deal (because the wealthy have more ability to buy stocks and gain a larger share more quickly causing income and wealth inequality).

 

You move from one thing to another without ever really acknowledging you were wrong on the last topic.

 

The problem with wages not growing is not that the labor market is weaker then it appears.  It isn't (directly) the loss of the manufacturing base (though the loss of unions with it have hurt, but unions were being hurt before that too).  The problem with wages not growing is that the increases in the economy are going to the stock holders (in terms of stock values) and essentially none of it is going to the workers and that's (heavily) because of changes in government (e.g. tax policy; paper pushing).

 

And if anything lack of wage growth is driving the issues in the labor market.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

(Then if you want to discuss why that's bad in terms of income and wealth inequality we can do that.  But you just keep moving from one thing to the next without settling the last and some times going in circles.  I've already discussed patents when I originally explained why wealth is not created.  And now, I'm back to discussing patents and wealth creation.)

[PleaseBlitz]

8 hours ago, Nerm said:

I am totally crossing my fingers in hope that the interactions in this thread result  in a simple  physics equation that becomes "The unifying theory of money" that brings all humans into agreement.  Like e=mc2️⃣ for economic policy.  

 

This horse has been beaten into a liquid. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

43 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

What (heavily) drives the creation of new technology and makes the people that design collect much of the wealth?  Patents.  What are patents if not paper? 

 

People don’t pay for patents, they pay for the technology the patent protects.

 

Quote

 

What are Civil Rights laws if not paper?  But there's no doubt part of what has happened in this country is allowing African Americans to go to better schools and onto colleges has allowed them to get better jobs.  Civil rights laws and integration are an important part of the decrease in poverty in the African American community (and in the US).

 

What does this have to do with whether or not wealth is created? Or with whether minimum wage is a good idea? Or which why wages are low?

 

Quote

 

 

Look, I feel like you've just changed topics without ever acknowledging you've done so.  We were discussing why wages weren't growing.

 

No, we were discussing whether or not wealth is created and whether or not raising the minimum wage is a worth while endeavor. 

 

I showed some charts of real-income that shows that inflation has always kept up with minimum wage growth and there it’s a fruitless endeavor.

 

You said that historical evidence isn’t really evidence, and that there could be other possible explations (the second part is perfectly fair)... then you said that we don’t know what the affect of raising the minimum wage would be in this economy because inflation is low and inflation not responding to economic conditions the way you expect. 

 

Quote

You move from one thing to another without ever really acknowledging you were wrong on the last topic.

 

 

I wasn’t wrong. You created a specific example in which wealth isn’t created. Your opinion is that technology is limited in a scope that man can possess. So what? 

 

Quote

 The problem with wages not growing is that the increases in the economy are going to the stock holders (in terms of stock values) and essentially none of it is going to the workers and that's (heavily) because of changes in government (e.g. tax policy; paper pushing).

 

You are wrong. I’ve clearly shown that over the past 20 years the number of people living in poverty has been steadily decreasing. You are basing your beliefs on an untrue assumption that wages are not growing, especially on the lower end.,

 

Quote

 

And if anything lack of wage growth is driving the issues in the labor market.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

(Then if you want to discuss why that's bad in terms of income and wealth inequality we can do that.  But you just keep moving from one thing to the next without settling the last and some times going in circles.  I've already discussed patents when I originally explained why wealth is not created. 

 

No, you didn’t. You created specific examples where wealth is not created. There are many examples.

 

 

[Larry]

Folks, 

 

This philosophical discussion was OT three days ago.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

59 minutes ago, Larry said:

Folks, 

 

This philosophical discussion was OT three days ago.  

 

Is there a minimum wage/labor mega thread? 

[Jumbo]

just speaking for me, i was stalling cuz it was a data-laden exchange which is always good imv, but quite OT as it extended. i was hoping it would end last night, but let me put a mod hat on it and while thanking the participants for the work, it's time to wrap up

[visionary]

 

[88Comrade2000]

Debate 2 is Tuesday/Wednesday. Will Bernie go after his #1 threat, Lizzie?

Will Kamala finish Joe off, or will he strike back?

It should get down and dirty.

 

Last chance for the minor candidates.

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Debate 2 is Tuesday/Wednesday. Will Bernie go after his #1 threat, Lizzie?

Will Kamala finish Joe off, or will he strike back?

It should get down and dirty.

 

Last chance for the minor candidates.

breh, why do you write your posts about the presidential election as if its a horse race or the end of a 60s Batman episode? I am kinda waiting for you to say, "same bat-time, same bat-channel," to close out these posts.

 

It's not entirely your fault because the TV networks can't help but cover the election this way, but I was hoping this thread would not do that.

[PleaseBlitz]

Quote

The United States set a record for the longest economic expansion this month, and it is expected to go on even longer. The next recession will likely begin in 2020, according to a panel of housing experts and economists.

 

The Zillow® Home Price Expectations Survey, sponsored by Zillow and conducted quarterly by Pulsenomics LLC, asks more than 100 real estate economists and experts for their predictions about the U.S. housing market. The Q2 survey also asked the panelists for their expectations about the next recession, and how home-buying demand will change through the end of next year.

 

Few panelists expect a recession to start by the end of this year. Half of the experts surveyed said the next recession will start in 2020, with nearly one in five (19%) identifying the third quarter as the likely beginning. Another 35% of experts think the current expansion will end in 2021.

 

The most likely cause for the next recession is trade policy, followed by a stock market correction and geopolitical crisis. Only a few experts think that a housing slowdown will be a significant factor in causing the next recession, with 12 respondents naming it among the three most likely triggers.

 

http://zillow.mediaroom.com/2019-07-25-Next-Recession-Will-Begin-in-2020-Experts-Say

[TheGreatBuzz]

And that is why we just put house for sale.....

[LadySkinsFan]

Yes, glad I sold mine last year. 

[ixcuincle]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/fdu0au/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-andrew-yang---bringing-bold-and-unique-ideas-to-his-2020-white-house-bid---extended-interview?xrs=synd_twitter_072619_tds_30

[Cooked Crack]

Tim Ryan with the bribes or some kompromat.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Tim Ryan with the bribes or some kompromat.

 

Wow, it's amazing the way you can pull those things out of your Philly.  How long in advance before the performance did you have to swallow that?  

 

[China]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Wow, it's amazing the way you can pull those things out of your Philly.  How long in advance before the performance did you have to swallow that?  

 

 

You do know that the word ass is not censored by the filters on this forum, right?

 

 

[Larry]

Just now, China said:

 

You do know that the word ass is not censored by the filters on this forum, right?

 

 

 

Actually, I've never experimented to find out.  I think, when I began this tradition, the board didn't filter words, and posters had to do it themselves.  

[Mr. Sinister]

For real. Wtf was that, an old English swear?

[TheGoodBits]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

And that is why we just put house for sale.....

 

We are next week, same reason. We’re going to be relocating in the next 1-2 years and don’t want to be stuck under our mortgage. 

[Cooked Crack]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Wow, it's amazing the way you can pull those things out of your Philly.  How long in advance before the performance did you have to swallow that?  

 

This has just flown over my head.