American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cappy

You can't make that assumption, though.

At best, NAFTA benefits, and companies continue to flow into Mexico to take advantage of the emerging industrial market there.

At worst, Trump comes after NAFTA again and we are again fighting for a place at the table.

In reality, the move to re-industrialize continues to take place in southern US States where they offer tax incentives and lower labour standards, rather than the rust belt.

Whose fault is it for negotiating a free trade agreement where everyone knew jobs would ship to 'cheap labour' Mexico?

Oh right.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Can you provide an example of a good in the last 30 years that has come down in price and ended up staying low?

Not including technology because that's related to expanded manufacturing/exploitational labor.

Clothes

White goods (basically anything that can be purchased at WalMart or Canadian Tire)

Furniture

Appliances

And there’s no reason to exempt technology just because manufacturing was offshored to cheaper markets. Go look at what a microwave, vacuum cleaner, TV, or CD player cost in 1985 in today’s dollars.

Beyond prices, there’s the improved quality and choice global markets have brought us. If the people who complain about the impact of globalization could hop in a time machine to 40 years ago, they’d find the material conditions people lived under quite eye-opening. The ####ty quality and high prices of most consumer goods. The dire choices in food and produce - the average grocery store today has 4x as many products as a similar-sized store in the 80s.

Reasonable people can disagree about the fairness of how the economic gains of the last 40 years have been distributed. But you can’t make a credible judgement without taking the benefits to consumers into account.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whose fault is it for negotiating a free trade agreement where everyone knew jobs would ship to 'cheap labour' Mexico?

Oh right.

Brian Mulroney?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Trickle down is a scam, but only because the government coined the phrase to justify their actions.

But it is amusing. Everyone bitches and moans about their hardships, but keeps voting for the same morons who repeat the same cycle.

And especially these days its really easy to manipulate people to vote in certain directions. OMG TRUMP IS HITLER!! MAAGAAHAA!! BIDEN IS ON TOP OF HIS GAME!!!!

Sad, really how easily people are duped.

So i think you actually agree with the people you are arguing with here.but let’s revisit the discussion.

People point to economic growth numbers and the Stock Market to back up the statement that people are better off under Biden than Trump.

Others point to income to housing ratios, inflation, real wages, etc to say despite “the economy” being better people aren’t better off.

Iggy Oi says. Big surprise the stock market didn’t trickle down
You respond - Well it’s not supposed to.

So in this general discussion I think everyone agrees that
a) the stock market gains to not transfer into improved standard of living or improved outlook on life for the median person

b) Trickle down economics as defined by low taxation on capital gains, corporations, and wealthy wage earners improving the median persons standard of living, doesn’t work.

So if we agree to those two tenants I think we can agree with the following statement

If you have an increasing stock market and you do not have an increasing standard of living that is evidence of trickle down economics as defined above not working.

In an environment where trickle down worked record profits, record stock market highs, should correlate perhaps slightly leading with improving standards of living.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is a tough one. As the majority of large shareholders (and wealthy in general) use the Buy, Borrow, Die strategy to avoid taxes.

It's a clear and legal tax loophole that allows billionaires to skirt paying little, if any taxes and shouldn't just be seen as people wanting to tax unrealized profit.

I've always thought that you don't tax unrealized gains or profit - but, if you want to use a capital asset (stock/bond whatever) as collateral to receive a loan, it must be first realized.

If Elon wants to put up $50B of Tesla stock to fund his purchase of Twitter, that stock needs to be realized in the year it is being used as a financial instrument to secure the funding. He doesn't need to spend his own money, but he needs to pay taxes because he is actively using that asset value.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Another big blow to Biden's campaign as Representative Adam Schiff is urging him to withdraw and let someone else run for President.

So I think Biden resigns the Day after the RNC is done or at least the process starts in earnest. Strategically this is the correct time.

1) it prevents the RNC from attacking potential candidates at a well covered media event.
2) it knee caps the post convention bump from VP announcements and the positive media cycle
3) it changes the narrative leading into the Democratic Convention where you have a 1 month “primary like event” for support to coalesce which will be media cat nip to push your new candidate from obscure to the public eye.
4) it ends the trump assignation news cycle.

So I suspect on Monday Biden announces he is stepping down with now through Sunday increasingly significant people start calling for his resignation with Obama calling for it Monday if he hasn’t agreed to resign by then.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

So i think you actually agree with the people you are arguing with here.but let’s revisit the discussion.

People point to economic growth numbers and the Stock Market to back up the statement that people are better off under Biden than Trump.

Others point to income to housing ratios, inflation, real wages, etc to say despite “the economy” being better people aren’t better off.

Iggy Oi says. Big surprise the stock market didn’t trickle down
You respond - Well it’s not supposed to.

So in this general discussion I think everyone agrees that
a) the stock market gains to not transfer into improved standard of living or improved outlook on life for the median person

b) Trickle down economics as defined by low taxation on capital gains, corporations, and wealthy wage earners improving the median persons standard of living, doesn’t work.

So if we agree to those two tenants I think we can agree with the following statement

If you have an increasing stock market and you do not have an increasing standard of living that is evidence of trickle down economics as defined above not working.

In an environment where trickle down worked record profits, record stock market highs, should correlate perhaps slightly leading with improving standards of living.

Encouraging a business environment where wealthy billionaires invest their money is a plus.

Part of that is creating a cycle where companies are encouraged to go public and share their offerings on the stock market. The entire purpose of this is to help people get 'rich.'

That is exactly what is happening.

If there issues beyond that of deflated wage growth like opendoor pointed out, its rather stupid to sit there and blame the stock market, or even capitalism.

What you want to blame is crony capitalism, where the rich & powerful have aligned themselves with our governments to make sure they become more rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class or lower class.

Its rather obvious this is happening.

However if these so called economic policies would be setup in such a way where economic investment is encouraged, but taxation is fair and reasonable, the end result should be positive.

Just really strange how people whine and complain about these policies but then turn around and say its a net positive that the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars PER job to bring a company like Honda to Canada to build manufacturing plans, while completely ignoring the fact that Honda is rich enough to do that without subsidies.

But we're sold that bag of lies by people in the government who in the end are just padding their bottom line.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not complicated, unless you really have no idea what trickle down economics means. I mean, of course it's a taxation problem because that was the whole point of it. In fact it's quite simple. The idea is:

1) Reduce taxes on the wealthy and remove regulations.

2) This will create more economic activity and growth.

3) That growth will lead to higher paying jobs for the population.

Obviously that didn't ever happen. Real GDP per capita in the US has grown 109% since the late '70s. In that same time period, real wages are only up 9.8%. So where did all that growth go? Into the hands of the wealthy who are the beneficiaries of the tax and economic policies of the last 40 years.

As to how the stock market plays into it, it's exactly like GGG said. If the benefits of economic growth were more widely shared across demographics, then you would expect there to be some correlation between wages and the stock market. And there was for a long time. Real wages grew pretty quickly after WWII into the early '70s, which matches what the S&P 500 did (after adjusting for inflation). Then the stock market declined on a real basis as did wages into the early '80s. At that point, they went in completely different directions. The stock market went up 7-8x after inflation over the next 20 years while real wages were completely stagnant. And that has continued to this day with wealth and earnings increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the richest.

For clarity, you are comparing the increased GDP, not adjusted for inflation to real wages which are adjusted to inflation. Am I correct?

[FlamesAddiction]

The problem with the free market is that it really isn't free.

You have commodity prices being influenced by speculation and hedging that don't always reflect supply and demand. You have countries, cartels and corporations controlling supply to increase demand. You have corporations forming agreements with competitors to impact markets the same way monopolies would (Canada's telecommunication companies are a good example of that).

I feel like this is getting way off topic, but the market dictates prices, the market is dictated by people who aren't just using simple supply and demand.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Getting out of Covid is a worldwide problem, in fact the USA ranks 9th best for the lowest inflation out of 195 countries, Canada is 10th BTW.

The bolded actually surprises me. I was in Paris in the spring, my cousin lives there so I went grocery shopping with him. Most items in stores are way cheaper there, I couldn't believe it!

I even bought a couple of toiletries as they had the same brand I use, and even with the tough exchange rate, it was quite a bit cheaper. Grocery shopping within metro Paris shouldn't be considerably cheaper than Calgary.
(a night out on the town in Paris is where it's actually crazy expensive)

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Azure

Encouraging a business environment where wealthy billionaires invest their money is a plus.

Part of that is creating a cycle where companies are encouraged to go public and share their offerings on the stock market. The entire purpose of this is to help people get 'rich.'

That is exactly what is happening.

If there issues beyond that of deflated wage growth like opendoor pointed out, its rather stupid to sit there and blame the stock market, or even capitalism.

What you want to blame is crony capitalism, where the rich & powerful have aligned themselves with our governments to make sure they become more rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class or lower class.

Its rather obvious this is happening.

However if these so called economic policies would be setup in such a way where economic investment is encouraged, but taxation is fair and reasonable, the end result should be positive.

Just really strange how people whine and complain about these policies but then turn around and say its a net positive that the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars PER job to bring a company like Honda to Canada to build manufacturing plans, while completely ignoring the fact that Honda is rich enough to do that without subsidies.

But we're sold that bag of lies by people in the government who in the end are just padding their bottom line.

I think "fair and reasonable" is the hard part. What does that actually look like? 5% flat? It might be fair but is it reasonable to tax a fast-food manager as much as a CEO? How does it impact their contribution to the economy? It's not an easy answer and I wish governments and people were more collaborative on it rather than right vs. wrong. The tax system is too complicated for it to be black and white imo

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

The bolded actually surprises me. I was in Paris in the spring, my cousin lives there so I went grocery shopping with him. Most items in stores are way cheaper there, I couldn't believe it!

I even bought a couple of toiletries as they had the same brand I use, and even with the tough exchange rate, it was quite a bit cheaper. Grocery shopping within metro Paris shouldn't be considerably cheaper than Calgary.
(a night out on the town in Paris is where it's actually crazy expensive)

Canadian grocery prices have shocked me for a while every time I go back. They were already high pre-COVID inflation.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whose fault is it for negotiating a free trade agreement where everyone knew jobs would ship to 'cheap labour' Mexico?

Oh right.

Mulroney?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

For clarity, you are comparing the increased GDP, not adjusted for inflation to real wages which are adjusted to inflation. Am I correct?

No, that's not correct. I used Real GDP per capita, which is adjusted for inflation already. Virtually every GDP statistic you ever read will be already adjusted for inflation, as it's designed to capture actual growth.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

The bolded actually surprises me. I was in Paris in the spring, my cousin lives there so I went grocery shopping with him. Most items in stores are way cheaper there, I couldn't believe it!

I even bought a couple of toiletries as they had the same brand I use, and even with the tough exchange rate, it was quite a bit cheaper. Grocery shopping within metro Paris shouldn't be considerably cheaper than Calgary.
(a night out on the town in Paris is where it's actually crazy expensive)

EU countries have had cheaper groceries for a while - at least since i started taking notice in 2016

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No, that's not correct. I used Real GDP per capita, which is adjusted for inflation already. Virtually every GDP statistic you ever read will be already adjusted for inflation, as it's designed to capture actual growth.

Thanks for the clarification

[T-Dog]

http://https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.3714298

I thought this CBC interview with JD Vance was really interesting. I didn’t know much about him before he was picked as Trump’s VP, but he’s surprisingly articulate and insightful. Clearly he’s not a Trump supporter at this time, so would be very interesting to understand how he moved into the Trump camp.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Encouraging a business environment where wealthy billionaires invest their money is a plus.

Part of that is creating a cycle where companies are encouraged to go public and share their offerings on the stock market. The entire purpose of this is to help people get 'rich.'

That is exactly what is happening.

If there issues beyond that of deflated wage growth like opendoor pointed out, its rather stupid to sit there and blame the stock market, or even capitalism.

What you want to blame is crony capitalism, where the rich & powerful have aligned themselves with our governments to make sure they become more rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class or lower class.

Its rather obvious this is happening.

However if these so called economic policies would be setup in such a way where economic investment is encouraged, but taxation is fair and reasonable, the end result should be positive.

Just really strange how people whine and complain about these policies but then turn around and say its a net positive that the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars PER job to bring a company like Honda to Canada to build manufacturing plans, while completely ignoring the fact that Honda is rich enough to do that without subsidies.

But we're sold that bag of lies by people in the government who in the end are just padding their bottom line.

You can certainly attribute blame to capitalism as crony capitalism can be argued to be the end result of a capitalist system.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

So I think Biden resigns the Day after the RNC is done or at least the process starts in earnest. Strategically this is the correct time.

1) it prevents the RNC from attacking potential candidates at a well covered media event.
2) it knee caps the post convention bump from VP announcements and the positive media cycle
3) it changes the narrative leading into the Democratic Convention where you have a 1 month “primary like event” for support to coalesce which will be media cat nip to push your new candidate from obscure to the public eye.
4) it ends the trump assignation news cycle.

So I suspect on Monday Biden announces he is stepping down with now through Sunday increasingly significant people start calling for his resignation with Obama calling for it Monday if he hasn’t agreed to resign by then.

This is a very sensible plan. So it definitely won't happen.

Apparently Biden is very bitter against Obama for 2016. Biden believes Obama caused him to lose to Hilary (I don't remember the exact order of events). Obama saying anything definite is more likely to harden Biden's resolve to stay.

I think we all view Obama has having a higher standing and more authority since he used to be Joe's "boss", but Joe definitely doesn't see it that way!

Real sliding doors moment though in 2016. I'm not sure if Biden would have had enough to beat Trump, but even if he didn't, he certainly wouldn't be on the ticket right now!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Canadian grocery prices have shocked me for a while every time I go back. They were already high pre-COVID inflation.

I just paid $9.09 for a 4L jug of milk at the grocery store. I usually don't check prices for regular staples like that when I shop, so I never noticed how expensive it has become.