Taking advantage of poor, unassimilated immigrants is a mechanism by which you can grow an economy while none of the growth gets to the common people.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Indeed. That was why it was the right that first endorsed migration because of cheap labor. It’s also why refugees rather than economic migrants are the scapegoats since the donors don’t want to lose their cheap labor
I think you'll find that the people who bribe your government into servility exploit poor American workers as readily as they do immigrants.
The fact that you support the party most beholden to their money and ideology reveals just how meaningless your comment here is. You should just come clean and say you just don't like immigrants rather than try to hide it with poor reasoning.
So, what's your party's record on measures to improve wages? Minimum wage, job regulations, maybe labour union power?
It's not like the Democrats have been great defenders of the poor either, but... you have to be abysmally stupid or delusional to think that the Republicans haven't aggressively pursued policies that favour lower wages (of Americans and immigrants alike). As I suspect you are neither, this means you're just full of shit. You know the Republicans have been all-in on bosses profiting over their workers, you just refuse to admit it.
I mean, there was that whole tax cuts and jobs act that put a ton of money back into worker's hands while simultaneously managing to increase real wages across the economy...
I would certainly say some Republicans have pursued policies that tend to lower wages, and all Republicans view "labor unions" negatively still as they spent about a century acting as explicit Democratic political machines that are only recently breaking free of that connection. "All-in" is very incorrect.
More importantly, where big business appreciates that Republicans push back on unions, big business ever more so appreciates that Democrats destroy their competition. The nonsense in US regulations, rules that are infamously expensive to implement, often ineffective at improving people's lives, and constantly change so that you basically need to have someone on the inside to keep up, are written by a Democratic bureaucracy lobbied by corporations to make sure they are the only ones who can legally and economically compete. They wrote a law that simultaneously mandated every American contract to private healthcare financing companies while also making it nearly impossible to create any new options beyond the pre-existing biggest players, and then sued nuns for not wanting to pay into corporate insurance. And you personally celebrate this law.
I think what you mean was that there was a tax cuts and jobs act that slapped a load of extra strain on the national debt whilst real wages happened to continue increasing as they had been under the previous (Democratic) administration.
It was Republicans who set the trend of declining to enforce anti-monopoly law, which has increasingly allowed industries to collect in a small handful of mega-firms who can then abuse their monopoly power to destroy competition. Deregulation just gives even more power for firms to then abuse their customers, and Republican justices gave business and the rich unprecedented ability to deform politics with their oodles of money.
I celebrate it as giving healthcare access to more Americans than the previous status quo, and very little else. But I note the total lack of responsibility you want to take for the ideological intransigence that left so few other options: but then, it's been a long time since taking responsibility for oneself was popular in conservative circles.
A) At a greater rate than that administration.
B) That administration only had that when Democrats lost control of the Senate and couldn't control the budget.
C) Reducing taxes should have a negative impact on real wages.
Since real wages is just wages accounting for the impact of inflation over time, an action that impacts inflation would effect it. Lower taxes and higher spending relying on debt effectively pushes money into the money supply, decreasing its purchasing power. To have lowered taxes and increased real wages means the policy managed economic growth greater than the punishment of its impact on debt and inflation. That's an impressive thing. Of course, not spending gratuitous extra piles of money is an important part of that. Every time Democrats get unilateral control, they pass some ridiculous omni-bill that invariably spikes inflation and tanks real wage growth.
The White House insists that launching a second missile at a boat to kill the survivors of the first missile was "self defense to protect Americans".
www.independent.co.uk
Because those two wounded people likely clinging to wreckage could have swam to the US and sold drugs.
White House confirms second strike that killed alleged drug boat survivors
Trump administration refuses to say whether survivors on suspected drug-trafficking vessels posed imminent threat
www.independent.co.uk
Because those two wounded people likely clinging to wreckage could have swam to the US and sold drugs.
Pete Hegseth used a Canadian children's character to make light of blowing up boats full of people.
I can't even come up with ways to mock this shit anymore. These people are psychopaths.
I can't even come up with ways to mock this shit anymore. These people are psychopaths.
Look, this whole post is garbage, a vast waft of hot air.
Firstly, it's simply that if you actually had a point you could usefully defend with data, you'd have done so. You haven't because you know you can't really defend the point. There are statistics for wage growth, inflation and real wage growth, and they don't usefully support your points. You talk about budgets and spending, but there's data on government spending too, and none of that defends this idea of inflation-busting mega-spending by the Democrats.
* * *
Secondly, perhaps more problematically, you just don't sound like you know what you are talking about. I can see some words, and you have used numerous words that often appear in conjunction with each other when making economic statements, but none of it really makes any sense.
"Lower taxes and higher spending relying on debt effectively pushes money into the money supply, decreasing its purchasing power."
You don't appear to understand what "money supply" is. It's a specific thing and it isn't important here. However, that's more a nitpick as you are at least partially right in the principle, because if there's more money chasing the same amount of stuff then inflation will go up. (More money is "demand", in normal understanding of supply of goods and services and demand to buy them). But a major demerit for missing out that whole other side of the supply:demand relationship, as it's incredibly important, and bad to miss out.
"To have lowered taxes and increased real wages means the policy managed economic growth greater than the punishment of its impact on debt and inflation."
Okay, let's try and break down this total clusterfuck of a sentence.
- If real wages go up, then nominal wages have gone up more than inflation, fine.
- If the economy experiences real terms growth, then the economy (in nominal value) grew faster than inflation, fine.
- Real wages aren't the same thing as economic growth. Real wages can go up whilst the economy shrinks! (e.g. this happened during Covid-19.) So you can't link real wages to economic growth as straightforwardly as you have done here to draw the conclusion you do.
- All this talk of real wages and inflation has absolutely no bearing on whether growth was greater than its impact on debt. This is just weird.
- Once a stimulus increases spending power, inflation does not suddenly appear: it gradually emerges with a lag of months-years. Inflation is also affected by a lot of other things. So how are you measuring this to draw all manner of conclusions you do?
- The economy is, in simple terms, everything all entities spend. If someone takes on debt to increase spending, then the economy should increase by an amount equivalent to the extra spending. It's not like you have said different, but it's unclear you understand that.
The Trump tax cuts were a stimulus.
The government can borrow more to spend more itself, and the national debt goes up. The government can cut taxes and reduce its revenue so the public can spend more with government spending remaining the same, and the national debt goes up. The difference is whether the extra spending will be done privately or publicly, either way the national debt goes up. Your argument here seems to boil down to an absurd claim that private spending doesn't increase inflation but public spending does. Or you can argue that the Democrats spend more and tax correspondingly more, so without adding debt, which should be, theoretically, roughly inflation neutral. Take your pick, but it's economically illiterate either way.
Secondly, the US federal government represents approximately 20% of the US economy. So when a Democratic government increases spending in a so-called "omni-bill", what difference is this actually making to the US economy? Actually, approximately fuck all. A 10% real terms increase in total government expenditure from one year to the next (that's a big increase) when government spending is 20% of the economy means a 2% increase in national economic activity: about the same as standard annual GDP growth. The amount of inflation this will cause is likely to be more in the region of a rounding error. This tells us that you have little comprehension of the numbers involved when you talk about "inflation spikes" caused by government spending increases.
Or you're talking about government emergency packages such as to combat recession - then that's some really big sums. But that's obviously not a fair and reasonable comparison, and certainly not a Democratic thing because the Republicans also also try to stimulus their way out of recessions. Nor is this sort of thing usually a major inflation problem, because it's more about maintaining demand for goods and services relative to pre-recession, by making up for people losing their jobs and so on.
Last edited:
Vaccines on the whole were made political because of covid. Also, they put the covid vaccine in the childhood schedule when no one wanted that.
What the fuck are you talking about? What thousands of deaths?
Because the outbreak started in the wealthy, liberal enclave of Marin County, California, and because some of the best-known “anti-vaxxers” are Hollywood actors
Anti-vaccination beliefs don’t follow the usual political polarization
Opposition to vaccines still prevents many children from getting needed preventative care. Understanding who is opposed, and why, can help, but the answers may surprise you.
theconversation.com
And you still can't admit you don't know what "community benefit" means with regards to vaccines. There's no reason to mandate a vaccine that provided no community benefit.
What the fuck are you talking about? You're just going on and on about stuff I never said. When the fuck did I lie about how many people died? You all lied about masks and still lie about masks, nobody has put forth any conclusive evidence that they work (find me any article from before 2020 that actually said masks do anything, that was the science and that is still the science because we only did a very small handful of actual decent mask studies). I said that you can't tell people to not socialize for months/years at a time and not have massive mental health issues. Telling people that they can't do things outside or kids can't play sports and whatnot were policies that helped reduce stress? They removed swings and other equipment from parks. That had the opposite affect and why I was very much against that.
Even The Atlantic did an article and how misguided covid guidelines were...
Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty
Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve.
www.theatlantic.com
Vaccine science is apolitical. Vaccine policy is inherently political; whether they mandated or not, it would have been a political decision. And that decision concerned only covid vaccines.
So, what changed peoples' minds on older, non-mandated vaccines? Certainly not a decision to mandate a different one. I'd suggest its down to the uptick in conspiracy theories/misinformation surrounding vaccine science. These theories already existed, before any mandate, and targeted any and all vaccines. Then covid came and gave them greater exposure. More people were exposed, and fooled.
The resurgences of measles and rubella since 1998, attributed in part to the fraud perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield, and its impact on public confidence in the MMR vaccine. It was very widely publicised, spreading fear of a non-existent autism link. Huge numbers of people refused the vaccine on the basis of falsified data, over decades-- the claim still pops up. How many contractions, resurgences? How many deaths? Its difficult to quantify, but analyses often identify Wakefield's fraud as one of the greatest harms ever done to public medicine.
Vaccine science wasn't apolitical during covid. The left said natural immunity didn't count, the left said the vaccine provided community benefit. Why were kids forced to get the covid vaccine when they aren't forced to get the flu vaccine when the flu is more dangerous to kids? Are kids not allowed to eat at restaurants because they don't get the flu vaccine? Well, that happened with the covid vaccine, that's not science, that religious-like ideology.
This article is just plain wrong for example:
Questioning a catchphrase: 'Pandemic of the unvaccinated'
This summer’s coronavirus surge has been labeled a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” by government officials from President Joe Biden on down.
apnews.com
When a governmental body shows that it can't be trusted, then other things it has said beforehand come into question regardless if that is logical or not. Basic human psychology.
---
What untold thousands of deaths?
The health authorities (not some nebulous "the left") made various statements. Some were accurate, some were inaccurate, some were based on the information available to them at the time. This is not the same thing as "vaccine science being political".
You have never really been able to distinguish between science and policy.
All of this, these questions and gripes about some article, it's all totally irrelevant to what we're discussing.Why were kids forced to get the covid vaccine when they aren't forced to get the flu vaccine when the flu is more dangerous to kids? Are kids not allowed to eat at restaurants because they don't get the flu vaccine? Well, that happened with the covid vaccine, that's not science, that religious-like ideology.
This article is just plain wrong for example:
Questioning a catchphrase: 'Pandemic of the unvaccinated'
This summer’s coronavirus surge has been labeled a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” by government officials from President Joe Biden on down.
So you believe that because people disagreed in principle with the policy of a covid vaccine mandate, they also concluded that all other (unrelated, non-mandated) vaccines don't work? Even though efficacy isn't their issue with the covid vaccine policy to begin with?
Bullshit. Vaccine "scepticism" is down to anti-vax lies gaining traction during covid. Its aided by the sort of half-baked, poorly-informed misinformation you often repeat.
The fact that this is still relevant so long after the original study was discredited frustrates me.
In a sense, that is correct. Private spending does not lead to inflation, public spending does. Because when private interests run out of money, they run out of money. When the government runs out of money, it takes on debt, some of which is to the Federal Reserve that issues new money. Issuing more money into the same sized economy decreases the purchasing power of that money, which makes the government run out faster. Inflation is not just a term for prices going up, supply and demand can make a price go up or down, and private spending can cause that. Inflation is the term for the overall price of everything going up, which is a consequence of the purchasing value of money dropping, which no amount of private spending will ever cause.
Nah, you've just demonstrated total economic illiteracy. Looking at percentage of totals is absolutely the wrong view. Think of an individual's budget for a second: they may make $50,000 a year while $45,000 is obligated to something. A 2% increase in pay would actually be a 20% increase in extra spending money, it's a much bigger difference in that sense. And if you balance on the razors edge, a 2% drop can take you from paying all your bills down to insolvency.
If we imagine a situation where the government is taxing 90% of what it spends, a 10% increase in spending is literally doubling the deficit.
Yeah, but with both the 2008-2009 stimuli, and the covid stimuli, the Republicans sent the people a certain amount of money directly, where the Democrats spent 3-5 times as much money on their own wish list of projects. Which is not totally problematic in 2009 (though certainly corrupt and manipulative), as the economic stagnation was a finance problem that might be pushed through with additional spending. In 2021, that sort of thing was psychotic, as the cause of the economic issue was people not being allowed to work, so now instead they are still not allowed to work, but the government is competing to buy the limited available goods with trillions of additional dollars...
You know the most trustworthy corporation is the one claiming they can block out the sun with a secret mixture of chemicals sprayed into the air across the world that no regulatory agency can stop or even safety check, that yeah ok while they refuse to provide any details like what chemicals, they assure us they secretly tested it in Israel already. (Which means tested in Palestine/Gaza most likely - read The Palestine Laboratory by Antony Loewenstein for more context there)