ADVERTISEMENT

Kamala Marx

Hold on a second. Who thinks that corporations will put consumers ahead of profits? That seems like a really obvious straw man. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise -- if you can cite somebody actually saying this. But I'd be really surprised if you could.

The primary purpose of for-profit enterprises is, as the name suggests, to generate profits and, thus, returns for their shareholders. Everything else they do -- which is a lot -- follows this. Take that away, and eventually the entity must be dissolved.

The primary purpose is not to provide jobs, nor to serve customers, to make good products, to pay taxes, to be customers of other businesses. All of those things are good and desirable, all of them are necessary to serve the primary purpose. But none of them are themselves the primary purpose -- they are all means to an end.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.
I sense as part of the dereg movement a belief of some kind of altruism in corporations. As you note, and as I beleive as well, that is surely not their movitivation.

So what about consumers? Their only protection in a deregulated environment would then be the relief of the courts. Courts which take years to resolve cases and then usually via settlement with no wrongdoing acknowlege. Behaviors would change as a result of financial losses incurred through the settlements paid, but those changes would be years, if not decades, in the making.

I also do not see any wrongdoing in creating an entity such as a corporation within our economy. But we shouldn't ascribe human motivations to them (such as altruism or.....free speech through campaign donations). They will always favor the bottom line.

So what about consumers? While I agree we should all be ever vigilant about the products and services we use, we depend on regulation to feel "safe" in doing so. Would that disppear in a deregulated environment?

I know you likely don't beleive in NO regulation. But the dance around how deeply those regulations go seems to be working as intended. Sometimes it swings too far and has to be reeled back.
 
Apparently Marxism just isn't all that popular. And this was peak honeymoon and before the Walz debacle.

We'll see. I think there will be a DNC bump and Harris/Walz is way out raising MAGA cult. And you can't underestimate the number of Americans who just hate Trump. In my opinion, that last group is who pushed Biden across the finish line in 2020.
 
Hold on a second. Who thinks that corporations will put consumers ahead of profits? That seems like a really obvious straw man. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise -- if you can cite somebody actually saying this. But I'd be really surprised if you could.

The primary purpose of for-profit enterprises is, as the name suggests, to generate profits and, thus, returns for their shareholders. Everything else they do -- which is a lot -- follows this. Take that away, and eventually the entity must be dissolved.

The primary purpose is not to provide jobs, nor to serve customers, to make good products, to pay taxes, to be customers of other businesses. All of those things are good and desirable, all of them are necessary to serve the primary purpose. But none of them are themselves the primary purpose -- they are all means to an end.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.
The only reason we accept the system you describe is because of the belief that it is the best way to provide safety to consumers, make good products, provide jobs, etc. (See Friedman, et al.).

If that system doesn't reasonably provide for those things--or we discover a better way to accomplish same-- then there most certainly is something wrong with that system.
 
Happy Jonah Hill GIF
I'm growing the business. I'll expect my 10%. I just need to get elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
I'm growing the business. I'll expect my 10%. I just need to get elected.
Trust me: the politicians that back trial lawyers are paid, and paid well. I'm still shocked the WSJ has never delved deeply into this. I have no idea where the bodies are buried, but I know they're there.
 
  • Love
Reactions: larsIU
Elon Musk is a great example of someone being really good at certain things and making an obscene amount of money doing those things really well, but generally speaking he's a moron. He clearly doesn't know what 'literally' means and probably doesn't know what a communist is.

We as a country need to get away from putting the uber rich on a pedestal as smart people in areas where they have no clue about.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man. :cool:

Personally I think he's made some really insightful points. In fact, he echoed something I've long believed.

When it comes to some kind of dispute or conflict, some people are just wired to support whoever they see as the less powerful party. I think some have been calling this "Underdogma."

Musk was saying this in relation to Israel/Gaza -- and I agree that it applies there. But it applies in a lot of situations. For instance, some people criticize judges for "siding with corporations and the wealthy". Well...what if the law favors a corporation or a wealthy person? They should lose in court, simply because they're wealthy?

And it's not that the opposite is true. Courts also shouldn't favor corporations or wealthy people, simply because they're corporations or wealthy people. What they should favor is justice in accordance with law -- and there's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Apparently Marxism just isn't all that popular. And this was peak honeymoon and before the Walz debacle.

You always link that one weird poll. Here's the RCP average (Harris is leading and has been trending up):


Just the head-to-head:


Battlegrounds (still better for Trump but trending away from him):


Note Georgia isn't strong for Trump and his stupid attack on their popular Republican Governor isn't going to help him there. He's so dumb.
 
We'll see. I think there will be a DNC bump and Harris/Walz is way out raising MAGA cult. And you can't underestimate the number of Americans who just hate Trump. In my opinion, that last group is who pushed Biden across the finish line in 2020.
I'm been closely following politics for a long time, and I've never seen anything like what's been happening the last two and a half weeks. After concerns that Biden's stepping aside would result in a fractured party and all kinds of issues/problems at the convention, the party immediately coalesced behind Harris and the campaign has launched like a rocket ship. Hundreds of millions in fundraising. Hundreds of thousands of new campaign volunteers, with thousands more Harris volunteers than Trump volunteers on the ground in several key states. The Harris/Walz ticket is dominating the news cycle and controlling the narrative. And where's Trump? He isn't even campaigning. Wtf?
 
The only reason we accept the system you describe is because of the belief that it is the best way to provide safety to consumers, make good products, provide jobs, etc. (See Friedman, et al.).

If that system doesn't reasonably provide for those things--or we discover a better way to accomplish same-- then there most certainly is something wrong with that system.

I completely agree. But that comports with what I'm saying, it doesn't conflict with it.

The profit motive has produced all kinds of fantastic benefits for the world -- beyond profits for investors. And I think they're often taken for granted.

Now, that doesn't mean we should have "unfettered capitalism!" But I think that's another common straw man. Because advocating for a sensible and limited regulatory regime is not the same thing as advocating for anarchy. There are anarchists out there -- but they're on the fringe. And it's simply wrong to conflate them with people who argue that we should have a regulatory regime that serves its purposes with as little resistance to economic output as possible.
 
I completely agree. But that comports with what I'm saying, it doesn't conflict with it.

The profit motive has produced all kinds of fantastic benefits for the world -- beyond profits for investors. And I think they're often taken for granted.

Now, that doesn't mean we should have "unfettered capitalism!" But I think that's another common straw man. Because advocating for a sensible and limited regulatory regime is not the same thing as advocating for anarchy. There are anarchists out there -- but they're on the fringe. And it's simply wrong to conflate them with people who argue that we should have a regulatory regime that serves its purposes with as little resistance to economic output as possible.
Good. We're on the same page.

Re healthcare and @larsIU , I think it comes down to how best--some combination of fast, cheap, quality (yes, I know the old saw)--we can provide it. I'm down with at this point in our society and science, if we can afford it, providing some minimum level of health care to every citizen. Call that a "right" or call it a "privilege" of US citizenship, I don't care. But if you agree with that, you then ask "how best do we achieve this?"
 
health insurance is profit driven and I don't think provides any great benefit to health care itself.

I definitely think that more healthcare goods and services should be paid for out of pocket -- or at least with some kind of tangible incentive for consumers to play their usual role of being discerning and frugal. It's such a critical role...and the primary reason that most of the things we need can be gotten at efficient prices.

Can you imagine what the cost of fuel, oil changes, and tires would be if we sought to pay for them all through our auto insurance?

I've always been intrigued with Singapore's healthcare paradigm. Look into it.

We think of the rising cost of college education having free access to capital through student loans. The colleges take little risk. I think there's some kind of cousin to health insurance in this respect as well.

The risk is all put on taxpayers these days. Yes, there are key similarities between healthcare and higher education when it comes to finance. I would argue that it's because they're both more or less considered to be rights.

But setting that aside...the chief problem with higher ed lending is that there's no relationship established between the loan being sought and the expected value of the education it will be used to obtain.

It would be like applying for a $500K mortgage and the bank (which, in the case of student loans, is we taxpayers) giving it to you without any regard to the actual value of the property you're buying -- or, for that matter, your wherewithal to pay it back.
 
You always link that one weird poll. Here's the RCP average (Harris is leading and has been trending up):


Just the head-to-head:


Battlegrounds (still better for Trump but trending away from him):


Note Georgia isn't strong for Trump and his stupid attack on their popular Republican Governor isn't going to help him there. He's so dumb.
You need to learn how to read crosstabs and understand what those polls are really saying.
 
You need to learn how to read crosstabs and understand what those polls are really saying.
ROFLMAO! You are the least intelligent poster I've ever encountered on the WC. You don't even understand what you just typed. I'd bet on it. Explain what you think the crosstabs are telling you. Be specific. Start with explaining what you think a crosstab is. LOL!
 
Good. We're on the same page.

Re healthcare and @larsIU , I think it comes down to how best--some combination of fast, cheap, quality (yes, I know the old saw)--we can provide it. I'm down with at this point in our society and science, if we can afford it, providing some minimum level of health care to every citizen. Call that a "right" or call it a "privilege" of US citizenship, I don't care. But if you agree with that, you then ask "how best do we achieve this?"

Would you consider EMTALA as already guaranteeing a level of healthcare to every citizen (in fact, it's not even limited to citizens -- or even immigration legal status)? For all intents and purposes, it's generally used this way.

I don't think single-payer healthcare is a good idea. And this is evident by looking at the systems that have been in place for sufficient amount of time to evaluate. They haven't cracked the code, they've just chosen a different poison.

But, as I said above, I have always been intrigued by Singapore's system (Medisave) -- which is basically:

1) people of working age have MSAs (which do have some subsidy for low-income) which they use to pay the vast majority of their healthcare transactions.

2) Payroll deductions of 8.5-10% of earning fund the savings account.

3) The catastrophic insurance is single-payer, for expenses beyond the MSA.

4) People are incentivized to use as little of their MSA as possible to meet their healthcare needs -- but still have the funds and insurance in place to meet those needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I definitely think that more healthcare goods and services should be paid for out of pocket -- or at least with some kind of tangible incentive for consumers to play their usual role of being discerning and frugal. It's such a critical role...and the primary reason that most of the things we need can be gotten at efficient prices.

Can you imagine what the cost of fuel, oil changes, and tires would be if we sought to pay for them all through our auto insurance?

I've always been intrigued with Singapore's healthcare paradigm. Look into it.



The risk is all put on taxpayers these days. Yes, there are key similarities between healthcare and higher education when it comes to finance. I would argue that it's because they're both more or less considered to be rights.

But setting that aside...the chief problem with higher ed lending is that there's no relationship established between the loan being sought and the expected value of the education it will be used to obtain.

It would be like applying for a $500K mortgage and the bank (which, in the case of student loans, is we taxpayers) giving it to you without any regard to the actual value of the property you're buying -- or, for that matter, your wherewithal to pay it back.
Singapore looks like a great public/private partnership though I suspect the forced savings through that Central Provident Fund would be a helluva fun policy debate to actually have in the US.

But, alas, we'll discuss tampons and couches.
 
Singapore looks like a great public/private partnership though I suspect the forced savings through that Central Provident Fund would be a helluva fun policy debate to actually have in the US.

But, alas, we'll discuss tampons and couches.
The bipartisan Senate group is actually already talking about establishing a SWF for Social Security.

That would be a step in the right direction - but not nearly as good as private individual accounts. For some reason I’ve never really understood, those are non-starters for Democrats.
 
The bipartisan Senate group is actually already talking about establishing a SWF for Social Security.

That would be a step in the right direction - but not nearly as good as private individual accounts. For some reason I’ve never really understood, those are non-starters for Democrats.
We Democrats love TAXES.

But I do like the SWF model for public investment/savings. As long as our governments (state or federal) can keep their sticky fingers out of it for anything other than its intended use.
 
The bipartisan Senate group is actually already talking about establishing a SWF for Social Security.

That would be a step in the right direction - but not nearly as good as private individual accounts. For some reason I’ve never really understood, those are non-starters for Democrats.

Here's a Semafor story about the consideration of the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund as a means to generate higher returns from Social Security dollars. Again, I don't think it's the absolute best way to do this. But it's better than what they have been doing. And it's doubly bad when you consider the damn near zero returns they've been getting from the SSTF over the nearly 30 years since President Clinton said "Save Social Security First." The amount of money they left on the table by doing this would easily measure in the trillions.

Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Angus King, I-Maine, are drafting legislation to ensure the solvency of Social Security that might involve the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, Semafor has learned from three people familiar with the efforts.​
It reflects the growing momentum to address the future of entitlement programs, particularly as a showdown over the debt ceiling looms in the summer. The bill would be kept separate from that battle. Both King and Cassidy were part of a bipartisan Senate gang that eventually passed an infrastructure law in the Senate in summer 2021.​
One option under discussion would see the federal government create a new fund with borrowed money, which it would invest in stocks to cover future retirement benefits. That maneuver is designed to cash in on the higher returns that equities usually earn compared to the Treasury bonds that Social Security’s current trust fund invests in. The people briefed on the proposal’s details cautioned that it may or may not end up in the final bill.​
Of course, this has all been done pretty quietly -- because it's likely to cause a political firestorm.
 
We Democrats love TAXES.

But I do like the SWF model for public investment/savings. As long as our governments (state or federal) can keep their sticky fingers out of it for anything other than its intended use.

I'll never forget Sen. Bob Kerrey relaying a story about asking Sen. Pat Moynihan why most of their fellow Democrats were so opposed to a Social Security system which delivered not only income for people in non-working years, but also some measure of wealth to pass on.

Moynihan's answer was "They're afraid it would turn Democrats into Republicans."

Think on exactly what Moynihan was saying with that answer.
 
As long as our governments (state or federal) can keep their sticky fingers out of it for anything other than its intended use.

This is one of the advantages of any kind of account that is held by individuals -- rather than collectives.

We've all seen Defined Benefit pension funds (including SS) raided to be used for other purposes. Has anybody ever seen a 401K or a Defined Contribution Pension get raided? I haven't.
 
The bipartisan Senate group is actually already talking about establishing a SWF for Social Security.

That would be a step in the right direction - but not nearly as good as private individual accounts. For some reason I’ve never really understood, those are non-starters for Democrats.
I've never understood it either. We should expand the federal workers' Thrift Savings Plan to the public. It would add wealth building to the program and allow people to pass it on when possible. If not individually, put all the Trust Funds into a single TSP account, which would be better than all the IOUs (Treasuries) from the government to itself.

 
I've never understood it either. We should expand the federal workers' Thrift Savings Plan to the public. It would add wealth building to the program and allow people to pass it on when possible. If not individually, put all the Trust Funds into a single TSP account, which would be better than all the IOUs (Treasuries) from the government to itself.


See how Pat Moynihan explained Democrats' opposition above. I think Sen. Kerrey relayed this story in an op-ed he wrote during the 2005 debate.

But I think it's incredibly illuminating. The way I interpret his comment is that Democrats fear that a program which results in the accumulation of wealth invested in capital assets to people who have never really had something like that will make some of those people rethink their political loyalties. It gets back to the classic divide between owners and workers.

If he was right about that, is it fair to say that they're betting their own political fortunes on.....dependency?

Thing is: so much has changed on this since the advent of 401Ks back in the late 70s. Last I looked, something like 55% of US households have some amount of money invested in capital assets -- and usually these take the form of 401Ks, 403Bs, Roth IRAs, or traditional IRAs.
 
I've never understood it either. We should expand the federal workers' Thrift Savings Plan to the public. It would add wealth building to the program and allow people to pass it on when possible. If not individually, put all the Trust Funds into a single TSP account, which would be better than all the IOUs (Treasuries) from the government to itself.

Also, the TSP has been an absolute boon for federal employees. I know several of these guys and it's great that they have it.

Employees of the City of Galveston have also benefitted handsomely from the city exercising a briefly open loophole allowing them to opt out of Social Security in favor of a Defined Contribution pension funded by the same regime of payroll taxes that would otherwise be OASDI (6.2% twice -- once above and once below gross earnings).

It's depressing to think how much money has been foregone by not making these kinds of reforms (even if it's just the SWF) decades ago.
 
See how Pat Moynihan explained Democrats' opposition above. I think Sen. Kerrey relayed this story in an op-ed he wrote during the 2005 debate.

But I think it's incredibly illuminating. The way I interpret his comment is that Democrats fear that a program which results in the accumulation of wealth invested in capital assets to people who have never really had something like that will make some of those people rethink their political loyalties. It gets back to the classic divide between owners and workers.

If he was right about that, is it fair to say that they're betting their own political fortunes on.....dependency?

Thing is: so much has changed on this since the advent of 401Ks back in the late 70s. Last I looked, something like 55% of US households have some amount of money invested in capital assets -- and usually these take the form of 401Ks, 403Bs, Roth IRAs, or traditional IRAs.
My TSP grew to almost half a million before I retired from the military and that's even with the fact that military members weren't allowed to participate until the last 12 or so years of my career. I'd easily have accumulated well over a million if I'd been allowed to participate my entire career. I know several DoD civilians from my last military assignment who retired as "millionaires" because they took full advantage of their TSP accounts.

Expanding this to the public would be the answer. The transition from the current system to the new system would be the hard part, but it could be done.
 
We can all hope for massive changes with Medicare and SS. But there are some easy things we can do to save money.

First thing is increasing premiums for part B and D. That has to go down to “low middle class”
 
Also, the TSP has been an absolute boon for federal employees. I know several of these guys and it's great that they have it.

Employees of the City of Galveston have also benefitted handsomely from the city exercising a briefly open loophole allowing them to opt out of Social Security in favor of a Defined Contribution pension funded by the same regime of payroll taxes that would otherwise be OASDI (6.2% twice -- once above and once below gross earnings).

It's depressing to think how much money has been foregone by not making these kinds of reforms (even if it's just the SWF) decades ago.
I would opt out of social security in a heartbeat so long as I got the full 12.4% that goes into it.
 
I would opt out of social security in a heartbeat so long as I got the full 12.4% that goes into it.
I imagine that anybody with even a modicum of financial sense about them would -- especially if they could do it early on in their working years.

The amount of money the current arrangement costs people is staggering. But, alas, it was set up to resemble a Ponzi scheme...so the program wouldn't be able to pay its current obligations without the current tax dollars. In fact, I believe they crossed the point a couple years ago where current taxes aren't even enough to cover its current liabilities. So they'll be drawing down the Trust Fund until it's exhausted in about 10 years.

And they tell us not to worry -- because after that happens, it'll still be able to cover about 3/4ths of its benefits. Oh joy. If a private fiduciary did anything remotely like this, they'd end up in prison.
 
We can all hope for massive changes with Medicare and SS. But there are some easy things we can do to save money.

First thing is increasing premiums for part B and D. That has to go down to “low middle class”

Probably the most politically easy thing to do is to steepen the curve for means testing on benefits. I'm sure they'll raise the taxation cap on OASDI, too. But that's really not going to result in the magic beans that many liberals hope to see. For one thing, benefits are statutorily pegged to taxes -- and that's very unlikely to be altered in any significant way. For another, policymakers have to consider the likely ramifications to all taxes if they raise the total tax bill on payroll money by that much. It would almost certainly cause people to move it to passthrough, deferred comp, stock options, etc. etc.

But the key is and always has been generating larger returns with the funds paid in.
 
Probably the most politically easy thing to do is to steepen the curve for means testing on benefits. I'm sure they'll raise the taxation cap on OASDI, too. But that's really not going to result in the magic beans that many liberals hope to see. For one thing, benefits are statutorily pegged to taxes -- and that's very unlikely to be altered in any significant way. For another, policymakers have to consider the likely ramifications to all taxes if they raise the total tax bill on payroll money by that much. It would almost certainly cause people to move it to passthrough, deferred comp, stock options, etc. etc.

But the key is and always has been generating larger returns with the funds paid in.
It needs changed to a market based system. Financed via premiums. Purchasers have their choice of plan. One of those choices is traditional Medicare. The subsidization of Medicare premiums would end for those making more than a set figure.
 
Here's a Semafor story about the consideration of the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund as a means to generate higher returns from Social Security dollars. Again, I don't think it's the absolute best way to do this. But it's better than what they have been doing. And it's doubly bad when you consider the damn near zero returns they've been getting from the SSTF over the nearly 30 years since President Clinton said "Save Social Security First." The amount of money they left on the table by doing this would easily measure in the trillions.

Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Angus King, I-Maine, are drafting legislation to ensure the solvency of Social Security that might involve the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, Semafor has learned from three people familiar with the efforts.​
It reflects the growing momentum to address the future of entitlement programs, particularly as a showdown over the debt ceiling looms in the summer. The bill would be kept separate from that battle. Both King and Cassidy were part of a bipartisan Senate gang that eventually passed an infrastructure law in the Senate in summer 2021.​
One option under discussion would see the federal government create a new fund with borrowed money, which it would invest in stocks to cover future retirement benefits. That maneuver is designed to cash in on the higher returns that equities usually earn compared to the Treasury bonds that Social Security’s current trust fund invests in. The people briefed on the proposal’s details cautioned that it may or may not end up in the final bill.​
Of course, this has all been done pretty quietly -- because it's likely to cause a political firestorm.
I don't align with Cassidy often, but he is a smart guy (and should 100% be played by Bill Hader if he ever needs a reason to be in a skit on SNL).

While I'm generally a liberal, what I really like are solutions that work. My adherence to core principles cuts off when principles don't bend to reality. I don't like to bend reality to principles.

I do wish we could cordone off a section of our federal government to focus solely on nuts and bolts, blocking and tackling type problems. Let the politicians argue over cultural bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
What they should favor is justice in accordance with law -- and there's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Funny how that blindfolded meaning changed.

The blindfolded justice first known image was published in 1494 in Ship of Fools, a collection of satirical poems by lawyer Sebastian Brant.
Depicted a fool applying the blindfold so that lawyers can play fast and loose with the truth.
 
I wouldn't necessarily equate egalitarianism to Marxism (or any strand of communism).

But what's missing is how exactly she plans to realize that vision. And that's where she'd run into a problem.
While she and the Dems are figuring that out they will do damage to the country that could years to reverse.

She and Walz are very dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Would have to meet him in person.
I’ve explained several times and can’t be more clear about it. I believe Trump is so unfit for the office in nearly every way (character, integrity, mental stability and discipline), and he can’t be trusted on national security, that it would be dangerous for the country for him to be President, especially Commander in Chief. It’s not about his so called policies, which he changes when he thinks it’s politically convenient (abortion, taxes, etc.), because for the most part I align with the domestic ones, it’s about him. This time he’d have to hire the third and fourth string for his cabinet and staff since he’s alienated the starters and second string, who overwhelmingly think he should not be back in the White House. With nothing but sycophants and loyalists inflicted with Trump Devotion Syndrome, who will mostly lack expertise for their assignments, there will be no guardrails.

You all can make your own decisions. I have no desire to change them. I’ve made mine. I’m comfortable with it. We’ll all get through a Harris administration, just like we did with Clinton, Obama and Biden despite thinking they’d take us down the path to socialism. This could have been avoided and we could be extolling the virtues of the GOP candidate if we had dumped Trump.
 
I’ve explained several times and can’t be more clear about it. I believe Trump is so unfit for the office in nearly every way (character, integrity, mental stability and discipline), and he can’t be trusted on national security, that it would be dangerous for the country for him to be President, especially Commander in Chief. It’s not about his so called policies, which he changes when he thinks it’s politically convenient (abortion, taxes, etc.), because for the most part I align with the domestic ones, it’s about him. This time he’d have to hire the third and fourth string for his cabinet and staff since he’s alienated the starters and second string, who overwhelmingly think he should not be back in the White House. With nothing but sycophants and loyalists inflicted with Trump Devotion Syndrome, who will mostly lack expertise for their assignments, there will be no guardrails.

You all can make your own decisions. I have no desire to change them. I’ve made mine. I’m comfortable with it. We’ll all get through a Harris administration, just like we did with Clinton, Obama and Biden despite thinking they’d take us down the path to socialism. This could have been avoided and we could be extolling the virtues of the GOP candidate if we had dumped Trump.
UncleMark liking your comment says it all. If Hickory was around he’d love it to. TMP loving it too.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT