Conquer Club

Here is why Democrats are opposed to growth.

(i) It is directly opposed to the ideals of sustainability and greenishness.
(ii) Democrats want economic equality. However, if everyone in the world was as rich as the Americans, the world would not be able to support that. Rather, the only way to achieve this equality is to make everyone in the United States poorer. As in, Medieval style poor, without toilets and all that. The best way to do this is to stop economic growth in the United States.
(iii) Unfettered economic growth causes swings in the economy. As bankers increasingly take out lower and lower interest loans to increase their leverage higher and higher, and bring in the bottom line with it, the economy becomes more unstable and therefore bad. The logical conclusion is to stop allowing economic growth, to let the economy fester by stopping credit.

After reviewing the 3 terms, it appears I am, in fact, a Democrat. I wonder when that happened.

DoomYoshi wrote:Here is why Democrats are opposed to growth.

(i) It is directly opposed to the ideals of sustainability and greenishness.
(ii) Democrats want economic equality. However, if everyone in the world was as rich as the Americans, the world would not be able to support that. Rather, the only way to achieve this equality is to make everyone in the United States poorer. As in, Medieval style poor, without toilets and all that. The best way to do this is to stop economic growth in the United States.
(iii) Unfettered economic growth causes swings in the economy. As bankers increasingly take out lower and lower interest loans to increase their leverage higher and higher, and bring in the bottom line with it, the economy becomes more unstable and therefore bad. The logical conclusion is to stop allowing economic growth, to let the economy fester by stopping credit.

After reviewing the 3 terms, it appears I am, in fact, a Democrat. I wonder when that happened.

Democrats don't want economic equality. I think you're confusing Democrats with liberals.

Maybe. So should the adjective be "unlike"?

DoomYoshi wrote:Maybe. So should the adjective be "unlike"?

If you agree with the above, you should consider yourself "liberal" I guess (at least with respect to economic issues). The people I know that agree with the OP would say they vote Democrat and don't like it or vote Green Party or Socialist and like it. In my unlearned opinion, there are three kinds of liberals: (1) Liberals who vote socialist or green party, acknowledging the Repocrat problem and understanding that their individual vote doesn't count; (2) liberals who vote Democrat, acknowledging the Repocrat problem but choosing to go with the lesser of two evils so long as they can pretend their vote counts; (3) liberals who vote Democrat, refusing to acknowledge the Repocrat problem.

There are similar issues with fiscal conservatives. There are three kinds of them too: (1) Fiscal conservatives who vote Libertarian, acknowledging the Repocrat problem and understanding that their individual vote doesn't count; (2) fiscal conservatives who vote Republican, acknowledging the Repocrat problem but choosing to go with the lesser of two evils so long as they can pretend their vote counts; (3) fiscal conservatives who vote Republican, refusing to acknowledge the Repocrat problem.

googled "repocrat problem" and nothing came up... enlightening please, tgd?

DoomYoshi wrote:googled "repocrat problem" and nothing came up... enlightening please, tgd?

It is a term coined by our own Andy Dufresne and generally made popular on CC by Saxi (who has a different term for the joining of the two parties). It has come up a number of times in this forum (if you search for "Repocrat" you'll find some interesting discussions). I think most recently I brought it up when I asked some people to name five differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney during the last election cycle.

Essentially, the theory is that the Republican Party and Democratic Party are not fundamentally different, with some specific and virtually irrelevant exceptions (like their stances on abortion). I'm referring almost enitrely to poliicians when I make these statements. If you take an unbiased look at the policies of President George W. Bush, you will see that he authorized the spending of a lot of money, prosecuted multiple foreign wars, generally infringed upon the rights of Americans, and created tax and spending benefits for his major campaign donors and supporters. Similarly, if you take an unbiased look at the policies of President Barack Obama, you will see that he authorized the spending of a lot of money, prosecutes mutliple foreign conflits, generally infringes upon the rights of Americans, and created tax and spending benefits for his major campaign donors and supporters.

This phenomenon doesn't just exist with the presidents, it also exists with most national party politicians. There are a number of other issues associated with our Repocrat system, including the limited existence of third parties, the Repocrat influence over the media, the ability to engage in effective political debate when the two parties essentially agree, etc.

If you think about it another way, go read Greecpwns' Greek politics/finance thread. There are, I think, six different political parties in Greece.

DoomYoshi wrote:Here is why Democrats are opposed to growth.

(i) It is directly opposed to the ideals of sustainability and greenishness.
(ii) Democrats want economic equality. However, if everyone in the world was as rich as the Americans, the world would not be able to support that. Rather, the only way to achieve this equality is to make everyone in the United States poorer. As in, Medieval style poor, without toilets and all that. The best way to do this is to stop economic growth in the United States.
(iii) Unfettered economic growth causes swings in the economy. As bankers increasingly take out lower and lower interest loans to increase their leverage higher and higher, and bring in the bottom line with it, the economy becomes more unstable and therefore bad. The logical conclusion is to stop allowing economic growth, to let the economy fester by stopping credit.

After reviewing the 3 terms, it appears I am, in fact, a Democrat. I wonder when that happened.

Voluntary exchange are mutually beneficial, thus both benefit. It's a positive sum gain, not a zero-sum gain--which is what you insist. Doesn't make sense.

iii simply isn't true. There is no unfettered growth. Look at the regulation and ponder about the role the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws play on the economy.