Are you going to seriously argue that conservatives are better? They are not getting free medical, what are you talking about? I hope you're not talking about the emergency room. Yeah, well, I have data that suggests you are wrong...so... I don't know, I'm just going to go with that. No one ever said minimal wage is a career but not everyone can have a good job, a good career, so basically just F those people? They should struggle day to day to pay rent and eat? Is this the conservative attitude that is better for the poor? You guys keep saying higher minimum wage is free when people are literally working to get paid. What good are opportunities when the ones you get do little for you but make you a wage slave? People work more and get the same rewards. You guys can keep going on and on about your bootstraps but how much longer can people pull on those until they tear them off?
It really doesn't, no matter what the socialists who made the graphic would have you think. I mentioned this in the OP. The graphic shows purchasing power continue to fall since 1962 as the minimum wage is continually raised. Socialists would have you believe that means that we need to continue the failing policy....because that's their shtick, when their policies fail they suggest that they just didn't do it enough.
And what would cause the value of the dollar to change? This is like getting raw egg in your face then sitting in the sun and saying THIS IS HOW I MAKE OMELETS!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but havent those who have embraced trump brand of politics and/or have been endorsed by him dominated the GOP primaries, while those that have opposed him have lost out? The democrats have not changed much from the last election cycle, and have always had a few 'Bernies' in their midst. The only thing that has changed is that GOPers are now classifying almost any democrat as an extreme leftist while (ironically) forcing out the more moderate republicans
One thing that would cause the value of the dollar to change would be inflation....you know, like when you put a ton more money into circulation by increasing the artificial floor..... Obviously there's more to it than that, but when you put more money into circulation by artificially increasing the floor, you are to deflate the value of the dollar. Yeah see that's just it, what does Trump actually stand for? In your mind there's some Trump ideology, but I'm not thinking that's a real thing. Also when it comes to Democrats being "extreme leftists"....well they have moved incredibly far to the left the last 10 years or so.....and that means to those who haven't moved with them, they are far left. Of course that's also why those who moved with them to the left seem to think that centrists are "far right"
Drop in purchasing power has almost nothing to do with minimum wage and more with inflation and wealth distribution. There is an appropriate role for minimum wage, particularly when used to trim the lower tail of the income distribution, but when the income distribution does not tail off normally, and even bulges like we currently have, then there are bigger issues afoot that need to fixed before the minimum wage can be back to being effective. Unfortunately, the capitalist system leaves few handles by which government can effectively influence the income distribution and thus some wrongly resort to trying to use the minimum wage to try and fix it. At the end of the day, the main culprit is the people's ignorance, which has left them shuttling from one snake oil sales man to the next on either side of the aisle
The problem is with people trying to influence the income distribution in the first place. When the government steps in on things like that, they do more harm than good. When the government artificially raises the floor, the market reacts to it by raising everything else....and usually by more than what the floor moved by. The result is that the poor get poorer.
Trump stands for extreme politics at the kind of levels we rarely see in this country. His ideology of you are either with me or against me with no middle ground or comprise (even within his own party) has been exhibited repeatedly, and was shown more recently with his handling of McCain passing, criticism of session and his warning of war to the evangelicals. He basically stokes fear and hate and points to anyone not explicitly in support of him or his ideas as an enemy. Maybe I am one of those that moved with them but I seriously doubt it has my opinion on most things havent changed in over 20yrs. Maybe you can list some examples of said shifts in ideology that has been adopted by majority of democrats
The problem is not with raising the floor per se but with raising the floor while leaving more serious problems unattended. Like I said earlier, minimum wage should be used to cleanup those few corner cases that would otherwise remain stagnant. But when a relatively large number of people are being affected by an increase in minimum wage, then there are serious problems with the market and quality+quantity+mobility of the labor force that need to be addressed. Those problems cannot be addressed by raising the minimum wage. When the government does not manage things like the income distribution, the result is a feudal system in which a few lord over the majority and in the end game a bloody revolution by the oppressed majority resets the system. This has been proven and occurred repeatedly in the history of the human race. For me, the role of the government is to moderate the system and the only question should be to what extent. A government with its thumb on everything would be a communist state, but the government cannot be fully hands off either. Its a bit like driving on a highway in which if the road is straight, less steering is needed but if the car starts to veer off road then a corrective action needs to be taken to keep things on track
I would agree that Trump's rhetoric is often extreme, but he's not really a right winger. Touching on shifts to the left over the years, did you know that Donald Trump was the first President to support gay marriage BEFORE he was in office? You have a "Republican" doing something that was seen as too far to the left even for Obama before he was in office. Something Bill Clinton was against, something Hillary was at one time against. Now you can argue (as I often do) that recognizing gay marriage shouldn't be seen as a left wing thing, but we both know it was seen that way a decade ago. Also a decade ago a politician calling themselves a "socialist" (even though Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he just doesn't know any better) would be viewed as nothing but a fringe lunatic, only viable in the most blue of areas.....fast forward to 2 years ago and you had someone calling themselves a socialist that would have won the Democratic party nomination for president if it wasn't rigged for Hillary by the party.
That's not true, the feudal system is a completely different system, you don't go from capitalist to feudal without a massive overhaul of every aspect of life. As to the complaints about a few having more wealth than the majority.....I mean that's just nature. Unfortunately we're not all created equal....put Danny Di Vito next to Lebron James and you can see that easily. The best and most productive will end up with the most in a capitalist system, but that's honestly the most fair way to do things. In a socialist system, everyone is poor and usually at some level of starving except for those at the top of the government. Give me the more fair system any day. Now that's not to say that the government has no role to play, it's just that the less they do more often than not will be for the best. Also, I reject conflict theory, I refuse to view the world that way. Let that nonsense die with Marx.
I never said trump was a right extremist (i doubt he has the intelligence to make it that far) but rather favors extremism in rhetoric and actions. With a few word changes, he would be equally at home with the extreme leftists. I think a big part of that is the religious make up of either side. Though, as has been shown more recently, those that often use their religious believes or valus as an excuse for the political positions, have often found it too convenient to suspend said believes and values whne it suits their motives. I dont think that is enough to say the party moved far left, after all, how many of said party representatives truly identify with Sanders and his like. My opinion of the Sanders candidacy was that it was partly engineered to give Clinton a opposing candidate which she could easily distinguish from but also not threatening enough to overturn the wishes of the party king makers
I think that's exactly it, and it's why I say that Trump has no actual ideology. He's merely **** talking rhetoric. He might have some loosely held ideas, but that's about it. That's also why he can't be the ideological center of ANY party, he has no true ideology. Now I'm obviously biased here, but IMO the Republicans would be wise to move towards libertarianism where they can be socially liberal while remaining fairly economically conservative. If they did that, they'd have a much brighter future at least IMO......but I'm a libertarian, so I would say that. Well the way the DNC has their primary set up, there's literally nothing that could overturn the wishes of the party king makers, If they had a system set up like the Republicans it would have been Trump vs Bernie. Likewise if the Republicans had a system like the Democrats do it would have been Hillary vs.....I dunno Rubio probably. As to the party moving left....I mean when Obamacare came up to be voted on, it was seen as too radical to get full support by Democrats, they had to bribe multiple Democrats with pork just to get them to support it....and that's after they gutted the single payer stuff out of there just to appease the more conservative Democrats. These days, they seemingly all support single payer and now we have crazies talking about abolishing ICE and profit. Those kinds of talking points would have gotten people laughed out of the DNC a decade ago....now we have people saying **** like that being called the future of the party.
Unfortunately, your premises and conclusions are wrong on many fronts. (Will point to just a few key ones to be brief) 1. Due to inheritance and similar parent/offspring endowment, it is possible to end up with most wealth without being the best or most productive. Said wealth and status inheritance was a key pillar of the feudal system. Barring a catastrophic event, a wealthy family could continue to consolidate their wealth and consequently power. To eliminate said advantage, inheritance tax would be 100%, and one would have to eliminate advantages in education and similar experiences gained from being born into a wealthy family - that would be truly socialist. So your claim that "The best and most productive will end up with the most in a capitalist system" is absolutely false 2. Real resources are truly finite and thus if a few gain control of it the rest would have nothing else to work with. Take for example a situation where 1% control 90% of the land, then said 1% would for all intent and purposes control the food market. Given that land is a limited resource others would have no recourse. Trying to import alternatives, can be easily thwarted by the incumbent flooding the market at a lower price to put the importer in financial trouble. Similar tactics are used in lawsuits when a larger law firm simply floods the smaller opposing firm with paper work (filing injunction and counter suits that need to be responded to) to tie up the smaller firms resources and limit their ability to build a strong case or to burn out the cash flow of a less resourceful opposing firm 3. Existence of anti trust laws and similar regulation to forcefully maintain competition in the market are more socialist oriented as the government is essentially tampering with the market and not letting capital truly dictate. 4. On the other side, we have seen truly massive corporations get away with stuff under the guise of too big to fail while smaller entities had to fold up. This is a benefit of their wealth and volume of resources controlled which enables them to hold the rest of the system to ransom. I am not advocating for socialism as well but believe there is a middle ground where the government puts in place checks that help correct the system earlier rather than later. Proper (not equal) income distribution is significant in maintaining a well run system and it would be catastrophic to leave it purely to "market" forces
Families rise and fall all the time. If those who are wealthy wish to continue being wealthy, they have to continue being productive. The statement that the best and most productive end up with the most in a capitalist system is completely true. Now if a family is wealthy enough, they might make it a generation or two without being productive, but you can't stay on top for long without it because they'll ultimately be replaced by those who are better and more productive. That's the beauty of capitalism. This scenario suggests that there is literally no government. I'm not an anarchist. No, they aren't "socialist oriented" given that in socialism there is no private ownership of business. Those are merely mechanisms in just about any well functioning capitalist system. Again, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist and those are literally the only people against having any regulations at all. What you are describing is corruption, something that needs to be fought against but also something that exists in literally any system. There's not "middle ground" with socialism any more than there is "middle ground" with Nazism or any other absolutely awful ideology. What does exist is forms of capitalism that allow for more or less government interference. The capitalist system in America is currently one where the government puts in place cheks that help "correct" the system "earlier rather than later" and all too often it's their efforts that cause much greater instability down the line. It's a situation where you have to take the good with the bad. As for "income distribution", that shouldn't be a concern of government unless it gets too ridiculous for too long. There's always going to be a bell curve due to Price's Law whenever the system is fair. Price's Law essentially points out that in any given population the square root of that population will accomplish approximately 50% of the work and the rest will be split among the rest of the population. There's approximately 326 million people in the country meaning that something like 18K people are responsible for half of the productivity.....that's far less than 1%. Those consistently in that top 18K should end up as the wealthiest. I'm not really big into the politics of jealousy, so I have no fundamental problem with those people doing well.
You cant eat your cake and have it. You have explicitly agreed that it is possible to be the wealthiest without being productive. So trying to put a time frame for decline is disingenuous. If the wealth can be maintained for one or two generations, then by same vein it can be maintained indefinitely. After all, the initial advantage/starting point, ensures that they have to do less to improve on what they have. The same individual is almost certain to be more 'productive' if born into a wealthy family than if born into poverty. This is a fact of life that there is abundance of evidence in support of. Of course there will be exceptions to the norm but they are simply exceptions. Bottom line, wealth does not go to the best and most productive in a capitalist system There is no lawlessnes in the scenario I have described. In fact, the law firm tactics happens everyday in the US - are you saying we are a lawless nation? They are socialist oriented as the government is influencing the market and not letting capital purely dictate. For example, by stopping mergers or breaking up companies and or their products, government is essentially exercising control over those companies i.e. acting like the owners, while the actual owners are denied the independence in decision making. It is not corruption as no fraudulent act is involved. It is a simple case of the government intervening in favor of firms they believe are critical to the overall system. The LTCM saga is an example, cos if it had been allowed to go fully belly up, the market would have likely crashed like there are various forms and degrees of capitalism, there also various forms and degrees of socialism, and also a lot of mixed economies in between. If you think socialism (or any economic system for that matter) is absolute, then I would suggest you read up on the basic economic systems (even a quick perusal on wikipedia should set you right) Income distribution should actually be a big concern of government and letting it get ridiculous (for any period of time) at all would be very stupid, as the social consequences are almost impossible to arrest. There are many factors and facets that determine an appropriate income distribution (and related but different wealth distribution), and a good government needs to keep a close watch on it to keep the system humming along at the right tune. Price law is not really a law in the sense that you seem to be applying it, cos in most situations it simply does not apply. As shown earlier, income has less to do with productivity e.g. the owner of a company can get as little or as high an income independent of his productivity. Below is a recent US income distribution and it is not a bell curve like you are proposing Without correcting action/path, you will not have a bell curve in your income distribution, and over time would instead end up with a double (or more) bell curve where you essentially see two or more bell distribution with different peaks (a similar effect is seen in academic performance at top schools) as a group of elites separates themselves from the herd and given the cumulative form of the advantage, the gap cannot be narrowed but widens with time. I really dont think you know much about nor have given much thought to this topic and would suggest you get more informed before pursuing it further.
Looks like Trump is doing what Obama did to the conservative base, he is bring out the liberal base and removing established Democrat incumbents. We will see if 2018 is 2010 all over again.
