[kenrexford]

God of love political discussions. I like to think in a reasoned way. Others like to throw out offensive hyperbole and biased nonsense. Hyperbole and bias don't have a tendency to persuade.

Question period what do you think the minimum wage should be?

Answer number 1. I'm not even discussing this with you because you are a Pinko communist. You want to steal money from people just to give it to whoever you happen to like to buy votes. You also would like to blow up federal buildings probably.

Answer number 2. You don't care about poor people. You probably drive over Poor People's Kids toys while driving to the country club. You also probably hate gay people.

Answer number 3. I think maybe the minimum wage should be something established by more local government involvement because the cost of living in a small world town is substantially less than the cost of living in a large metropolitan area. A person with a $10 an hour income in a small world town is doing very well for himself. A person with a $10 an hour job and a large metropolitan area is getting hammered. Maybe there should be some sort of standard based upon where you live.

Obviously the third is insane. We can't have that. One of the first two answers has to be the better answer.

[kenrexford]

As a complete aside I have now decided to stop correcting when my phone converts the text to speech in two words that don't make any sense and not what I said. At first it drove me nuts. I like for example, when it adds the word comma into a sentence and I said, oh. No it's just funny to me. I figure people can work it out.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-19, 18:08, said:

The two prominent assumptions that you see are your own. My statement is in no way supremacist. Your assumption that I am, apparently based upon stereotype, is frankly rather offensive.

My actual view which was not in any way stated with in that sentence happens to be completely different. It has absolutely nothing to do with Supremacy thinking. It has to do with two realities.

The first reality is that whether we like it or not there are people out there in the world who are at war with the United States. Allowing people to come into the United States under those circumstances from those countries is rather silly. Imagine a false but funny parallel. The United States and Britain could have saved a lot of lives If instead of storming the beach at Normandy we had just sent a large number of people into France claiming that these people were just vacationing on the Riviera and that some of them were just exchange students. Just as I don't have an anti-german View based on Supremacy which would be rather weird because I'm part German and just as I don't have an anti Japanese View I would not allow German and Japanese people to just walk into the United States by the hundreds of thousands during war. I would not go so far as internment camps. But on the other hand I would not invite them in.

The second major issue that I have is the reality that wages are incredibly low at the moment and that the labor participation rate in the United States is particularly low. It seems to me as if the government in the United States has come up with a new scheme. The idea is to tax the hell out of the 1% in order to pay for maintaining a growing population that we don't really want to employ because it cost too much money to employ them. The only way that we can tax the 1% in order to pay for that is to make sure that the 1% makes a ton of money. The only way that we can make sure that they make a ton of money without having to pay Fair wages to workers is to make sure that they have a lot of workers available that they can pay unfair wages. So you end up with four groups of people. The 1% who pay all of the taxes. A small middle class that figures out how to get ahead in life but not very far. A large lower class that would be too expensive to hire so we just tax the 1% to pay them to keep their mouth shut. And then we have a large number of immigrants some who are illegal and work under the table some of whom will take whatever job they can find because they're Amazed by how much money you can make in the United States in comparison to almost nothing else where. Or because they are desperate to. Two of the groups end up taking advantage of and living a terrible life. One of the group's ends up smaller and smaller. The connected people end up getting extremely wealthy which creates a very strong United States on paper.

None of this has anything to do with Supremacy. One has to do with logical War tactics. The other has to do with basic economics.

I understand a part of the counter thinking. Or at least I understand a counter thinking that would make sense to me. In thinking as a globalist or more properly a human there is not a whole lot of reason for me to find an attachment to someone who happens to live in California many hours away from me but to feel a disconnection between myself and someone in another country that is actually closer to me. National boundaries are to some degree arbitrary as it pertains to the human race. I get that and I sympathize with that.

However as to the first point the people with whom we are at War feel the absolute opposite and do not in any way view things from a human perspective instead of viewing it from a sick perspective based upon a demented philosophy. I might give food to the homeless but not at gunpoint. I certainly wouldn't take food out of my own child's mouth to give it to the homeless at gunpoint simply because the guy with the gun happens to be a human being about whom I care. And that's talking food. This crazy robber with a gun wants me to kill all the gay people some of them are my relatives he wants me to adopt a religion I don't agree with. He wants me to boss my wife around and tell her what she needs to do. That last part is actually more dangerous than getting shot at or blown up.

I also do not find any means of dealing with a government that wants to build up to 1% at the price of normal people other than the usual Market forces. Supply and demand. Location location location. A union has absolutely no power if there are twice as many people outside of the Union available to work. If you view the United States as a union then the adoption of policies that allow other workers to come in end up creating a supply glut that forces the union to either give up or to concede. Hence you need to keep the supply Down. I don't care if the supply is white black Asian I don't care what they are it's the supply that's the problem.

At least you have the courage to explain your silliness.

As an attorney, though, I would think you would offer a better argument than the first - about countries being at war with the U.S. A terrorist organization is active - in fact, several are active - but them sending a handful of supporters into the U.S. in no way threatens the destruction or capitulation of the U.S.A. We may indeed wish to vet those immigrant applicants more carefully, but I can't imagine banning them totally.

What really makes no sense is to allow these terrorists to change our values - banning immigrants because of their country of origin or religion would be contradicting our own values.

I am also surprised that you adopt a conspiracy explanation for low wages. There is nothing surprising about wages lowering and stagnating in a country that has changed from a manufacturing based economy to a service industry economy. The end result of years of union busting and globalization and regressive taxation policies is that the ultra rich reap the vast majority of the reward for increasing productivity while workers continue to lose wealth and health.

Anyway, your choice of candidates surprises me as I understand the intelligence required to obtain a law degree and pass the bar. I would urge you to re-examine Trump and your position.

[The_Badger]

Let's be honest, as a Brit I have a limited view of American politics. The papers and the media are usually biased, so the only way to gauge US politicians is to watch their performances on YouTube ( which probably have been edited - so they are probably biased too )

Trump, in my opinion, has that egotistical, megalomaniac edge that is bordering on dictatorial and is a very scary. He's not (from what I can see) a seasoned politician, just a billionaire businessman with an agenda.

I listen to his views (for the sake of completeness), as we live in a democracy and free speech is a tenet of this, but I am truly appalled by some of them.

He is openly racist, in a country that is extremely multicultural and diverse, especially in the larger cities. What message is he sending to these people?

All I am saying is that the Republican Party surely must have a better candidate than this, or does filthy lucre alone determine who stands for the Presidency in the USA?

[Al_U_Card]

It is called "paying lip service" and pols are usually expert at it. Trump doesn't give a rat's ass (due to his professionally diagnosed megalomania, no doubt) because as a boss (You're FIRED!) he is used to getting his way.

Elected officials run the gamut and he is, shall we say, hardly the paragon that Hilary pretends to be.

If Trump does not get tripped up AND he gets some real dirt (to stick) on Hilary, he could just win.

[Trinidad]

The_Badger, on 2016-August-20, 01:14, said:

Trump, in my opinion, has that egotistical, megalomaniac edge that is bordering on dictatorial and is a very scary. He's not (from what I can see) a seasoned politician, just a billionaire businessman with an agenda.

I think he is just a billionaire. He is not a business man and he doesn't have an agenda. His thoughts are roughly: 'Hmm, I'd like to have a TV show...' or 'I wonder what it would be like to run for president?' and he gives these things about as much thought as I do when I decide whether I want soup or salad.

If he would be a business man and if he would have an agenda, I would have much more confidence in him as a president. I think it is much better to have a president with an agenda that I don't agree with than one without an agenda.

Rik

[kenrexford]

Trump is no more egomaniac than the rest of them. He just doesn't know how to pretend he is not efeectively.

Trump also is not critical to the idea. Buchanan was of a similat strain but boring. To be plausible in the face of a fortress you have to be really loud.

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-20, 05:41, said:

I think he is just a billionaire. He is not a business man and he doesn't have an agenda. His thoughts are roughly: 'Hmm, I'd like to have a TV show...' or 'I wonder what it would be like to run for president?' and he gives these things about as much thought as I do when I decide whether I want soup or salad.

If he would be a business man and if he would have an agenda, I would have much more confidence in him as a president. I think it is much better to have a president with an agenda that I don't agree with than one without an agenda.

Rik

My way of phrasing pretty much the same thought: On many issues I have no idea what Trump would do and I don't think that he has either. He would build a wall to keep out Mexicans and he would have extreme vetting, the phrasing is ominous, of Muslims.

OK, contrary to what is often said I suppose we could build a wall. It might rival the old WPA of the 1930s as an employment project, and I think it would be far more useful to repair some bridges, but I suppose we can do it if that is what he really thinks is best. I don't think the Mexican government will be up for paying for it. Does he really mean that we will do this? Maybe, I don't know. It sounds stupid. Maybe he is just being sarcastic, this seems to be a catch-all excuse.

And does he have a list he would like to publish of which NATO countries we will defend, and which we will not?

But these are yes/no questions, we do or don't build this stupid wall. Other things are more subtle. Aleppo, for example. At one extreme we could announce that we will be flying in with food, medicine and water, that doctors will be coming in with us, and any attempt by anyone to interfere will be countered with massive retaliation. At the other extreme he could call his friend Putin and congratulate him on the successful collaboration with Assad in the bombing of hospitals. Which? I have no idea. Of course someone could ask Clinton if she agrees with the Obama policy of sending Kerry here and there to talk about it.

Trump has now announced that he regrets some of the things he has said. Which ones? This is a self-issued get out of jail free card. The wall? Oh well, forget the wall.That's one of the things I regret saying. Or maybe the only thing this regret applies to is the regret itself. I regret saying that I regret what I said. I once made an error, the error being that I thought that I had made an error.

I paid little attention to Trump until this last year. I never watched The Apprentice but I recall the ads. The ads for other shows would focus would focus on the joy or struggle of contestants, the focus for The Apprentice was on blustery DT announcing "You're Fired". Donald was the star, the contestants were props for Donald to fire. I never saw any reason to watch this, and I do not see any reason to want him as a president.

Anyway, this country has problems. I don't think that building a massive wall or announcing that we will defend some NATO allies but not others is the best approach to solving them.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-19, 21:37, said:

At least you have the courage to explain your silliness.

As an attorney, though, I would think you would offer a better argument than the first - about countries being at war with the U.S. A terrorist organization is active - in fact, several are active - but them sending a handful of supporters into the U.S. in no way threatens the destruction or capitulation of the U.S.A. We may indeed wish to vet those immigrant applicants more carefully, but I can't imagine banning them totally.

What really makes no sense is to allow these terrorists to change our values - banning immigrants because of their country of origin or religion would be contradicting our own values.

I am also surprised that you adopt a conspiracy explanation for low wages. There is nothing surprising about wages lowering and stagnating in a country that has changed from a manufacturing based economy to a service industry economy. The end result of years of union busting and globalization and regressive taxation policies is that the ultra rich reap the vast majority of the reward for increasing productivity while workers continue to lose wealth and health.

Anyway, your choice of candidates surprises me as I understand the intelligence required to obtain a law degree and pass the bar. I would urge you to re-examine Trump and your position.

Good, a real debate. I appreciate that.

As to the economics issue. You have made my point to some degree by agreeing that the end result of what we experience is the direct result of a decision to go with a service-based economy. The question however is why we have gone to a service-based economy. It is as if the cause is assumed and we merely have to come up with policy is to deal with the results. I challenge the cause. A blended economy is stronger in my opinion than a single Focus economy. I would much rather have two economies in a sense. 1 service-based economy. 1 manufacturing-based economy. Working side-by-side. I suspect that the reason for the drive toward a service-based economy only is a matter of environmentalism rather than a matter of economy. This ends up being strange. There is in my opinion a racism that is not spotted when we have a quote service-based economy. We end up as Trantor. A colonial power on paper. We ship out jobs to other countries so that they can work for cheap. The end result is that the white man still ends up enslaving the brown and the black but just not our brown and black. We end up with the same environmental problems just not in our neighborhood. We do end up with some poor people in our neighborhood who are downtrodden. Taken advantage of. However those people are immigrants and those don't count as much. But then we end up saying that we will make them see this and so that they don't have to endure the oppression. However once they are made citizens we need to have new people to jump up on. We need to have people that we can take advantage of that are fresh.

As to the immigration and terrorism issue. There is a difference between what has actually been proposed and what you are assuming has been proposed. What has actually been proposed as a temporary ban until things are worked out so that we have effective vetting. What we have now is a series of yes-or-no questions that are moronic. I also really don't care if it's only 1%. That 1% has wreaked havoc on the United States. Sure we've only had one major infrastructure taking down. I don't want to see nightclubs be the focus of a violent attack or any of the other countless examples. I want to be able to take my kid to the fireworks without fear.

Besides you are looking at this from one side of the coin not the other. I share your very liberal values. Therefore I also am very accepting of people who are Muslim. What I am not accepting is people who for whatever religion they have are completely not accepting of others. I know this is a false parallel but I think of this as a club. If I have a club that is accepting of others that is great. If I allow people to join my club who are completely the opposite not accepting of others then my club starts to fall apart and is no longer accepting. If even one fifth of my club happens to be KKK then I don't think my club is very accepting anymore. I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the KKK can March in Chicago. However I will not have the KKK be a part of my group. If that part is offensive so be it.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-20, 07:30, said:

I suspect that the reason for the drive toward a service-based economy only is a matter of environmentalism rather than a matter of economy.

Wow. Trump supporters are not just blind to facts, they make them up too.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-20, 07:30, said:

Good, a real debate. I appreciate that.

As to the economics issue. You have made my point to some degree by agreeing that the end result of what we experience is the direct result of a decision to go with a service-based economy. The question however is why we have gone to a service-based economy. It is as if the cause is assumed and we merely have to come up with policy is to deal with the results. I challenge the cause. A blended economy is stronger in my opinion than a single Focus economy. I would much rather have two economies in a sense. 1 service-based economy. 1 manufacturing-based economy. Working side-by-side. I suspect that the reason for the drive toward a service-based economy only is a matter of environmentalism rather than a matter of economy. This ends up being strange. There is in my opinion a racism that is not spotted when we have a quote service-based economy. We end up as Trantor. A colonial power on paper. We ship out jobs to other countries so that they can work for cheap. The end result is that the white man still ends up enslaving the brown and the black but just not our brown and black. We end up with the same environmental problems just not in our neighborhood. We do end up with some poor people in our neighborhood who are downtrodden. Taken advantage of. However those people are immigrants and those don't count as much. But then we end up saying that we will make them see this and so that they don't have to endure the oppression. However once they are made citizens we need to have new people to jump up on. We need to have people that we can take advantage of that are fresh.

As to the immigration and terrorism issue. There is a difference between what has actually been proposed and what you are assuming has been proposed. What has actually been proposed as a temporary ban until things are worked out so that we have effective vetting. What we have now is a series of yes-or-no questions that are moronic. I also really don't care if it's only 1%. That 1% has wreaked havoc on the United States. Sure we've only had one major infrastructure taking down. I don't want to see nightclubs be the focus of a violent attack or any of the other countless examples. I want to be able to take my kid to the fireworks without fear.

Besides you are looking at this from one side of the coin not the other. I share your very liberal values. Therefore I also am very accepting of people who are Muslim. What I am not accepting is people who for whatever religion they have are completely not accepting of others. I know this is a false parallel but I think of this as a club. If I have a club that is accepting of others that is great. If I allow people to join my club who are completely the opposite not accepting of others then my club starts to fall apart and is no longer accepting. If even one fifth of my club happens to be KKK then I don't think my club is very accepting anymore. I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the KKK can March in Chicago. However I will not have the KKK be a part of my group. If that part is offensive so be it.

Ken,

I appreciate your sentiments about terrorists; however, I think you are romanticizing our ability at self-protection.

As far as the economy, since Reagan U.S. laws have been altered to favor corporations over individuals. Policy change - lax tariffs and tax incentives - have encouraged multi-nationals to offshore many of our lower-skilled manufacturing jobs. Fierce opposition to labor has limited the ability of workers to unite with collective bargaining. When the pool of workers enlarges, pressure on wages reduces. None of this has anything to do with environmental problems. This is simply an ideology put into practice.

[Al_U_Card]

Ken was making assertions based upon his perspective and evaluation of the situation. Why denigrate his contribution? Facts, as we see in other types of polls, are pliable and can support a variety of positions, some of which can appear to be diametrically opposed. It is in the synthesis of these presentations and not in the consensus of one particular option that reality is best expressed, understood and employed.

Service economies may well be the last gasp of dying empires but the opposing positions of politicians trying to get elected is hardly germane to reality. (Although illusion is a part of reality, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff...)

Ken's points are interesting and evoke perceptions that are not necessarily in current appreciation.This also applies to the results of "fact-checkers" that may or may not have axes to grind.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-20, 07:40, said:

Wow. Trump supporters are not just blind to facts, they make them up too.

Did you read the rest of what Ken wrote? He makes a pretty good argument. I think his argument is flawed, but you cannot simply push it aside with a oneliner. Perhaps we should leave the oneliners to the people who are best at them...

Rik

[Trinidad]

KenR.

I think your argument is for a mixed (manufacturing/service) economy is fair, but incomplete.

To summarize your reasoning. The global economy s based on production factors: natural resources, energy, labor and ... places to dump the waaste of your production. If the USA only does the service economy to let the third world deal with the production economy, the third world will be drained from natural resources and energy and they will end up with a large pile of waste. This is why the USA should do its share of manufacturing.

I think that your reasoning is noble. The flaw, however, is in the availability of production factors. The USA doesn't have a work force that is willing to work for $2.50 a day. This is why your clothes are sewn in Bangladesh. Everybody in the USA is overqualified for these jobs: They have finished elementary school, they know how to do arithmetic and they are able to read and write. None of this knowledge or these skills are necessary for a true manufacturing job. And if you want to have manufacturing jobs that can compete with the rest of the world, you will have to stop investing in people, simply because you cannot afford it.

So, if you want a high standard of living for everybody in the USA, it will have to come from the resources that the USA has available. The biggest resource that the USA has, compared to the rest of the world, is knowledge. And I am not talking about top level scientific knowledge (college level or higher), no simply the fact that "everybody" has finished high school: They can read and write, do fairly complicated math, understand the basics of society, know how to write letters or send emails, can make business deals (Trump isn't the only one who can make a deal), can communicate, reason, make complicated decisions involving other people, drive a car, etc... A set of these skills are worth much more than $2.50 a day.

So, the US economy needs to be knowledge based. That will certainly also include (knowledge based) manufacturing, but, inevitably, it will be dominated by service industries, symply because the USA doesn't have the resources to do the old-style manufacturing work (people who are willing to work for $2.50 a day).

Rik

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-20, 07:40, said:

Wow. Trump supporters are not just blind to facts, they make them up too.

That is not a claim of "fact," it is a statement of opinion of a suspicion. As such, it is hardly offered as proof of anything.

[kenrexford]

Here's my response (implied but maybe to subtle) to the economics issue. Manufacturing needs not be a $2.50 proposition. I agree with a lot of what Winston says, but I think he reaches the wrong conclusion.

Our system for some time has been set up with a scheme. The idea is to have a very progressive tax system. That sounds good. However the end result is that we need to have a massive amount of income at the top 1% in order to afford the size of our government. As a result high paid wages get in the way of a progressive tax rate. It reduces the total income for the government. The solution that has been selected is to increase the tax rate even more for corporations while allowing them to make exorbitant income through low-wage workers. Those low wage workers are provided by the third world. And by illegals. This is created an unintended consequence because there are insufficient service based jobs for our suppose it middle class. The solution cannot be and will not successfully ever be to just increase the service industry because that is a finite number of jobs.

The best solution in my mind is to return a lot of our workers into manufacturing jobs. This necessarily requires that we somewhat adjust the tax code in order to allow a greater source of income for the government in a sense. However by doing so we actually reduce the burden on the government by taking away the need to subsidize displaced workers. William power higher wages but in the area of manufacturing by reducing the tax incentive for companies to go to the third world and pay ridiculous wages or to hire illegals. We counter that by reducing the burden on the highest level of income people so that we don't need to prop them up with things like bailouts and tarp. Ideally the end result that we should seek to attain is that the 1% income is substantially lower but their tax burden is accordingly reduced while the middle class actually grows into Fair wages for manufacturing jobs.

I think that Trump and Bernie we're actually heading in the same direction in a sense. Where I can Bernie got it wrong is that he thinks that you can just raise the minimum wage while keeping taxes high and somehow it will work out. It wont. The solution is to actually attack those people who are enabling the 1% to grow ridiculously strong. The Republicans want them ridiculously strong because that's just who they are. The Democrats also claiming to not like the 1% are actually in bed with 1% because they need that source of Revenue. The solution is to enable workers to compete in an open market 4 actual jobs the pay actual wages where the 1% cannot get around them. The union needs to have no unfair competition from overseas and no unfair competition from within the country in the form of illegals who are willing to work under the table and us actually working as a tax benefit to the employer. That's solution in and of itself will not work either because the companies cannot make the type of profit necessary to support the government if they have to pay higher working wages. The solution to that however is to reduce the taxes on the higher paying Corporation for those types of activities that assist with local workers. We also need to raise the passive income rate because that's ridiculous. In addition to that we need to have the burden on the government reduced so that this and send it doesn't exist anymore. Or at least not as strong. Having the middle-income paying taxes because they are working helps but it also helps if the labor participation rate increases. We increase that by having more jobs that are local for local people but also I think we seriously need to consider raising the retirement age.

There are some assumptions that just don't seem to pan out. The idea of the manufacturing can only profitably done by people making $2.50 is a conclusion reached only by assuming that the tax rate must be what it is. And assuming that the stock market must go up and that the wealthy must stay wealthy. Really wealthy I mean. While the Democrats will say that they do not favor the wealthy being very wealthy. Actually need them to be very wealthy with chicks planes why things completely inconsistent with supposed Democratic principles have been done over the last 8 years. It explains why Hillary Clinton have such a close relationship with multinationals. It explains why multinationals are sending millions of dollars to her.

The same type of thing happens with Healthcare. We have an assumption that Health Care is very expensive and hence we need insurance and hence we need to have funding of the insurance companies to make sure that we can afford medicine. That's all crap. Anyone who has had any medicine given to them as a prescription or has been in the hospital will realize that the prices charged by hospitals on paper have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the actual price that they charge to the insurance company. You supposedly needed insurance company making lots and lots of money in order to afford a $26,000 Hospital stay. When the actual price paid however is about $2,600 you could have paid that if you didn't pay the exorbitant insurance premiums. They tell you that we need to make sure that the insurance company is very wealthy with all of their money so that they can pay for the $50 aspirin. They don't pay for a $50 aspirin. The solution is not to increase the amount of insurance in my opinion. The insurance industry may be In Cahoots with the hospital so much that the best solution is actually a combination of antitrust litigation and criminalisation of price gouging. If gas companies charge $27 for a gallon of gas and are able to do that because they have convinced us to buy gas pools the best solution might be to break up the trust that enabled this nonsense and to put in jail those people who charge $27 a gallon for gas when the real market rate is $2.70 a gallon. We know what the real rate is because of what the insurance companies pay. So we should put the hospitals in jail if they try to charge people without insurance rates that are ten twenty thirty times that which of the real Market pays. But we don't do that why? Because both the Republicans and the Democrats are in bed with the insurance companies in the hospitals in order to make this kind of nonsense linger. If you instead have health savings accounts and competition for the hospital's deal directly with the client and if we had the nuts to actually break up the trust's and prosecute price gouging or possibly to enable litigation where private citizens to hospitals for price gouging then Obamacare would be an irrelevant debate because no one would get ObamaCare and no one would get insurance on the private Market Place unless it actually had a benefit which you would not. Of course I might be dreaming in that respect.

[akwoo]

1) Re: immigration. Let's suppose 100 out of a million (so 1 out of a thousand) people in some category coming into the US have the intent to hurt people in the US, and 999990 are trying to get a better life. Of those 100, most are completely unsuccessful, 5 have some minor success on the order of causing death to a few dozen and disruption to a few hundred, and 1 causes enough mayhem to cause problems for a few thousand. I don't think we have the right to make almost a million people's lives worse just to prevent death to a few hundred and disruption to ten thousand.

In general, I think we are morally obligated to accept at least a comparable degree of harm in order to avoid harming others. (1 Cor 6:7-8)

2) Technology is gradually making every human with an IQ less than 120 obsolete. Unless we want the Amish solution, low labor force participation is inevitable. The question is how we manage the transition.

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2016-August-20, 15:48, said:

1) Re: immigration. Let's suppose 100 out of a million (so 1 out of a thousand) people in some category coming into the US have the intent to hurt people in the US, and 999990 are trying to get a better life. Of those 100, most are completely unsuccessful, 5 have some minor success on the order of causing death to a few dozen and disruption to a few hundred, and 1 causes enough mayhem to cause problems for a few thousand. I don't think we have the right to make almost a million people's lives worse just to prevent death to a few hundred and disruption to ten thousand.

In general, I think we are morally obligated to accept at least a comparable degree of harm in order to avoid harming others. (1 Cor 6:7-8)

2) Technology is gradually making every human with an IQ less than 120 obsolete. Unless we want the Amish solution, low labor force participation is inevitable. The question is how we manage the transition.

1) You meant 1000 in a million? 100 in 1,000,000 translates to 1 in 10,000. But who's counting. Or is this one of those international things? A million is. to me, a thousand thousand, or aka 10^6

2) I think it is more subtle. I need some work done in the house. On NPR the other day they were speaking of the shortage of workers qualified to do this sort of thing. You don't need an IQ of 120, nor do you need to have studied Calculus or Plato. You need modest training and then you need to show up sober and on time. Work evolves, and that must be dealt with through training and updated training. But there are a lot of things that need doing and many of them can be done by people of average intelligence. Even I could do it, I would just rather not if I can find someone I trust to do a decent job.

Regardless of details, of course in the large you are right. We have to handle the increasing complexity if making a living. There is a lot to be said about this, more later.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-20, 09:56, said:

Here's my response (implied but maybe to subtle) to the economics issue. Manufacturing needs not be a $2.50 proposition. I agree with a lot of what Winston says, but I think he reaches the wrong conclusion.

Our system for some time has been set up with a scheme. The idea is to have a very progressive tax system. That sounds good. However the end result is that we need to have a massive amount of income at the top 1% in order to afford the size of our government. As a result high paid wages get in the way of a progressive tax rate. It reduces the total income for the government. The solution that has been selected is to increase the tax rate even more for corporations while allowing them to make exorbitant income through low-wage workers. Those low wage workers are provided by the third world. And by illegals. This is created an unintended consequence because there are insufficient service based jobs for our suppose it middle class. The solution cannot be and will not successfully ever be to just increase the service industry because that is a finite number of jobs.

The best solution in my mind is to return a lot of our workers into manufacturing jobs. This necessarily requires that we somewhat adjust the tax code in order to allow a greater source of income for the government in a sense. However by doing so we actually reduce the burden on the government by taking away the need to subsidize displaced workers. William power higher wages but in the area of manufacturing by reducing the tax incentive for companies to go to the third world and pay ridiculous wages or to hire illegals. We counter that by reducing the burden on the highest level of income people so that we don't need to prop them up with things like bailouts and tarp. Ideally the end result that we should seek to attain is that the 1% income is substantially lower but their tax burden is accordingly reduced while the middle class actually grows into Fair wages for manufacturing jobs.

I think that Trump and Bernie we're actually heading in the same direction in a sense. Where I can Bernie got it wrong is that he thinks that you can just raise the minimum wage while keeping taxes high and somehow it will work out. It wont. The solution is to actually attack those people who are enabling the 1% to grow ridiculously strong. The Republicans want them ridiculously strong because that's just who they are. The Democrats also claiming to not like the 1% are actually in bed with 1% because they need that source of Revenue. The solution is to enable workers to compete in an open market 4 actual jobs the pay actual wages where the 1% cannot get around them. The union needs to have no unfair competition from overseas and no unfair competition from within the country in the form of illegals who are willing to work under the table and us actually working as a tax benefit to the employer. That's solution in and of itself will not work either because the companies cannot make the type of profit necessary to support the government if they have to pay higher working wages. The solution to that however is to reduce the taxes on the higher paying Corporation for those types of activities that assist with local workers. We also need to raise the passive income rate because that's ridiculous. In addition to that we need to have the burden on the government reduced so that this and send it doesn't exist anymore. Or at least not as strong. Having the middle-income paying taxes because they are working helps but it also helps if the labor participation rate increases. We increase that by having more jobs that are local for local people but also I think we seriously need to consider raising the retirement age.

There are some assumptions that just don't seem to pan out. The idea of the manufacturing can only profitably done by people making $2.50 is a conclusion reached only by assuming that the tax rate must be what it is. And assuming that the stock market must go up and that the wealthy must stay wealthy. Really wealthy I mean. While the Democrats will say that they do not favor the wealthy being very wealthy. Actually need them to be very wealthy with chicks planes why things completely inconsistent with supposed Democratic principles have been done over the last 8 years. It explains why Hillary Clinton have such a close relationship with multinationals. It explains why multinationals are sending millions of dollars to her.

The same type of thing happens with Healthcare. We have an assumption that Health Care is very expensive and hence we need insurance and hence we need to have funding of the insurance companies to make sure that we can afford medicine. That's all crap. Anyone who has had any medicine given to them as a prescription or has been in the hospital will realize that the prices charged by hospitals on paper have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the actual price that they charge to the insurance company. You supposedly needed insurance company making lots and lots of money in order to afford a $26,000 Hospital stay. When the actual price paid however is about $2,600 you could have paid that if you didn't pay the exorbitant insurance premiums. They tell you that we need to make sure that the insurance company is very wealthy with all of their money so that they can pay for the $50 aspirin. They don't pay for a $50 aspirin. The solution is not to increase the amount of insurance in my opinion. The insurance industry may be In Cahoots with the hospital so much that the best solution is actually a combination of antitrust litigation and criminalisation of price gouging. If gas companies charge $27 for a gallon of gas and are able to do that because they have convinced us to buy gas pools the best solution might be to break up the trust that enabled this nonsense and to put in jail those people who charge $27 a gallon for gas when the real market rate is $2.70 a gallon. We know what the real rate is because of what the insurance companies pay. So we should put the hospitals in jail if they try to charge people without insurance rates that are ten twenty thirty times that which of the real Market pays. But we don't do that why? Because both the Republicans and the Democrats are in bed with the insurance companies in the hospitals in order to make this kind of nonsense linger. If you instead have health savings accounts and competition for the hospital's deal directly with the client and if we had the nuts to actually break up the trust's and prosecute price gouging or possibly to enable litigation where private citizens to hospitals for price gouging then Obamacare would be an irrelevant debate because no one would get ObamaCare and no one would get insurance on the private Market Place unless it actually had a benefit which you would not. Of course I might be dreaming in that respect.

Ken,

I have a lot of respect for the legal profession and the intelligence required to even get the right to practice, much less excel. That said, I, like you, see a lot I can agree with in your ideas but I think you come to some erroneous conclusions.

When you say that the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with the insurance companies I can somewhat agree but also disagree - for the most part, the job of modern politicians is to get themselves re-elected. After that, it is a battle between constituency and donors as to who is served.

I think there are some who are in the pockets of corporations - my own state has Sen. Inhofe who is virtually a mouthpiece for big oil - but I also see a lot of people in Congress who are simply pragmatic and try to get the best deal possible, not the best possible deal.

It is impossible overnight to change our healthcare system; it will have to be done incrementally. President Obama understood this and that is why - even with his first victory - he did not push for a single-payer system. Hillary understands this, as well; she stated her understanding of incremental change in her convention speech. She understand the world as does an adult. She knows what is possible to accomplish and what is unlikely and those things that are impossible. She is a pragmatist, which makes her even-tempered. And that is a primary reason I support her for President.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-August-20, 16:06, said:

1) You meant 1000 in a million? 100 in 1,000,000 translates to 1 in 10,000. But who's counting.

2) I think it is more subtle. I need some work done in the house. On NPR the other day they were speaking of the shortage of workers qualified to do this sort of thing. You don't need an IQ of 120, nor do you need to have studied Calculus or Plato. You need modest training and then you need to show up sober and on time. Work evolves, and that must be dealt with through training and updated training. But there are a lot of things that need doing and many of them can be done by people of average intelligence. Even I could do it, I would just rather not if I can find someone I trust to do a decent job.

Regardless of details, of course in the large you are right. We have to handle the increasing complexity if making a living. There is a lot to be said about this, more later.

There are still lower skilled jobs to be done, but the number is declining as the population is growing. Supply and demand pushes down the wages for those jobs, and that situation won't improve by itself. A higher minimum wage will help, as would universal health care, but eventually we're going to have to solve the problem of providing a tolerable life for those with no marketable skills.