Trickle down economics busted, Repubs nix report

[Symmetry]

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

I didn't get that from the article. I got that foreign investment does not necessarily mean an overall loss for the nation. I don't think it showed that any foreign investment equals a gain for the nation. It seems to be disproving a common misconception, not much else. Do I need to re-read it?

How is what you typed different than what I typed?

Hoopla dude- it's a kid word, and it's kind of vague. You two seem to agree, but I can see why he thought your post meant something different.

[Funkyterrance]

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

I didn't get that from the article. I got that foreign investment does not necessarily mean an overall loss for the nation. I don't think it showed that any foreign investment equals a gain for the nation. It seems to be disproving a common misconception, not much else. Do I need to re-read it?

How is what you typed different than what I typed?

Well I suppose the difference to me in the two statements is that yours implies that it's not possible to find a tax haven that doesn't negatively affect US economy.

[thegreekdog]

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

I didn't get that from the article. I got that foreign investment does not necessarily mean an overall loss for the nation. I don't think it showed that any foreign investment equals a gain for the nation. It seems to be disproving a common misconception, not much else. Do I need to re-read it?

How is what you typed different than what I typed?

Well I suppose the difference to me in the two statements is that yours implies that it's not possible to find a tax haven that doesn't negatively affect US economy.

I did not mean it that way. As Symmtery notes, the word I used was "hoopla." What I mean is there is a grave concern in the U.S. that investment in foreign countries is both pervasive and negatively affecting the U.S. economy. What the study shows is that there has been no great increase in foreign investment in recent years and that it is not as negatively affecting the U.S. economy (i.e. the hoopla is unneeded).

All that being said, I'm still skeptical of the stuff here because, again, we're taking one economic data point and showing how it affects the economy where there are thousands of other things that affect the economy.

[Dukasaur]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

Aside from the ritual charade of voting for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies, what input does a citizen have?

[Funkyterrance]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

Aside from the ritual charade of voting for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies, what input does a citizen have?

Well, I know that apathy never solved anything. The ritual charade could be broken, it would just take some wherewithal. I find it strange that many Americans more or less completely disassociate themselves from the government and even the economy as though they were from the outside looking in. Who is forcing these people to vote for one of two candidates? If every person with the attitude that "your only option is to vote for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies" voted for the same third party contender they might have a chance.

[Symmetry]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

Aside from the ritual charade of voting for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies, what input does a citizen have?

Well, I know that apathy never solved anything. The ritual charade could be broken, it would just take some wherewithal. I find it strange that many Americans more or less completely disassociate themselves from the government and even the economy as though they were from the outside looking in. Who is forcing these people to vote for one of two candidates? If every person with the attitude that "your only option is to vote for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies" voted for the same third party contender they might have a chance.

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

[Funkyterrance]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

Aside from the ritual charade of voting for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies, what input does a citizen have?

Well, I know that apathy never solved anything. The ritual charade could be broken, it would just take some wherewithal. I find it strange that many Americans more or less completely disassociate themselves from the government and even the economy as though they were from the outside looking in. Who is forcing these people to vote for one of two candidates? If every person with the attitude that "your only option is to vote for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies" voted for the same third party contender they might have a chance.

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Yeah, but one reason third parties don't do well is due to the aforementioned "wasting your vote" argument. The failed established candidate thing may be common but it's by no means the only option e.g. Ralph Nader.

[Dukasaur]

Well, I know that apathy never solved anything. The ritual charade could be broken, it would just take some wherewithal. I find it strange that many Americans more or less completely disassociate themselves from the government and even the economy as though they were from the outside looking in. Who is forcing these people to vote for one of two candidates? If every person with the attitude that "your only option is to vote for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies" voted for the same third party contender they might have a chance.

Apathy may not solve anything, but lack of apathy doesn't necessarily solve anything either. If you study Games Theory, you can learn numerous examples where bad results come from everybody doing the right thing.

Or, you can just watch this simple video to get some food for thought:

[Ray Rider]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US. Also, I believe the US government is a big investor in foreign countries.

Finally, I present - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

Did they summary tickle your fancy? It tickled my fancy--more so than a saxi-tickle attack.

The article is convincing and I have a more complete picture now, thanks to TGD.
I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Here's the fundamental difference in worldviews; do you believe that you, as an individual, private citizen, are the best steward of your money or does the government know best? I would much prefer to trust the invisible hand of individuals pursuing their own private interests and give the smallest possible amount of my money to politicians in government. Let's face it, they're pursuing their self-interests as well, much as they claim otherwise. As Milton Friedman said to a critic, "Just tell me where in the world you will find these angels who will organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that!"

[thegreekdog]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

Aside from the ritual charade of voting for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies, what input does a citizen have?

Well, I know that apathy never solved anything. The ritual charade could be broken, it would just take some wherewithal. I find it strange that many Americans more or less completely disassociate themselves from the government and even the economy as though they were from the outside looking in. Who is forcing these people to vote for one of two candidates? If every person with the attitude that "your only option is to vote for one of two candidates with virtually identical policies" voted for the same third party contender they might have a chance.

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

[Symmetry]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

[Dukasaur]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

Well, that's true, but I think it's more incisive to add the word "reluctant" in there somewhere. They're usually people who at some point reluctantly tried to work within the two-party system and failed.

[Funkyterrance]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

Well, that's true, but I think it's more incisive to add the word "reluctant" in there somewhere. They're usually people who at some point reluctantly tried to work within the two-party system and failed.

Completely agree with this.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps my cynicism is a bit too much here, but Gary Johnson didn't reluctantly run for the Republican candidacy. He didn't reluctantly become Republican governor of New Mexico.

[Funkyterrance]

Here's the fundamental difference in worldviews; do you believe that you, as an individual, private citizen, are the best steward of your money or does the government know best? I would much prefer to trust the invisible hand of individuals pursuing their own private interests and give the smallest possible amount of my money to politicians in government. Let's face it, they're pursuing their self-interests as well, much as they claim otherwise. As Milton Friedman said to a critic, "Just tell me where in the world you will find these angels who will organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that!"

For me, it's the fact that there very few checks and balances on the individuals.
I see it as a question of the likelihood of each group(govt vs. private) investing the money towards furthering the nation. Either or is probably completely capable of investing the money in exactly the same way. The difference is that most times when the government does it, we all get to see it. Instead of thinking of it in terms of you spending your own money vs. the government spending it, it may be more accurate to envision yourself lending money to either a single person or the government. When you spend money in the private sector you can be sure it's going to end up in some rich person's pocket eventually so you are basically choosing to let that rich person invest your money for the nation. I would rather lend money to an organization than to an individual. There just seems to be more accountability/forced honesty that way.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps my cynicism is a bit too much here, but Gary Johnson didn't reluctantly run for the Republican candidacy. He didn't reluctantly become Republican governor of New Mexico.

Why are you so reluctant to answer TGD's question:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180695&view=unread#p3947740

(hint: your response was a dodge).

Try again, Sym!

[Symmetry]

Perhaps my cynicism is a bit too much here, but Gary Johnson didn't reluctantly run for the Republican candidacy. He didn't reluctantly become Republican governor of New Mexico.

Why are you so reluctant to answer TGD's question:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180695&view=unread#p3947740

(hint: your response was a dodge).

Try again, Sym!

That's a link to yourself.

[thegreekdog]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

So third parties rarely succeed because their candidates were former members of the two major parties? I'm going to need some more analysis than that, especially given that there are plenty of third party candidates (for other offices) who were not former members of the two major parties.

[Symmetry]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

So third parties rarely succeed because their candidates were former members of the two major parties? I'm going to need some more analysis than that, especially given that there are plenty of third party candidates (for other offices) who were not former members of the two major parties.

Plenty?

[thegreekdog]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

So third parties rarely succeed because their candidates were former members of the two major parties? I'm going to need some more analysis than that, especially given that there are plenty of third party candidates (for other offices) who were not former members of the two major parties.

Plenty?

Thousands?

[Symmetry]

Third parties rarely do well in the US, and often they're not really third party- just failed candidates from one of the established parties. hence my scepticism of failed Republican candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now claiming that they're not Republicans.

Why do you think third parties rarely do well in the US?

They're rarely third party- they're usually failed members of the two part system- Nader for the Dems, Johnson for the Repubs, for examples.

So third parties rarely succeed because their candidates were former members of the two major parties? I'm going to need some more analysis than that, especially given that there are plenty of third party candidates (for other offices) who were not former members of the two major parties.

Plenty?

Thousands?

Who would you give as an example?

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps my cynicism is a bit too much here, but Gary Johnson didn't reluctantly run for the Republican candidacy. He didn't reluctantly become Republican governor of New Mexico.

Why are you so reluctant to answer TGD's question:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180695&view=unread#p3947740

(hint: your response was a dodge).

Try again, Sym!

That's a link to yourself.

Here ya go!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180695&start=75#p3947740

[thegreekdog]

Who would you give as an example?

Anyone running for national, state, and local office in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, other than president.

Look, this is your point - how about you prove it?

Symmetry - Third parties don't succeed because their candidates are former members of the two major parties.
TGD - Third parties don't succeed because the funding mechanisms in the United States benefit the two major parties. The two major parties don't engage with any third parties. The national media does not spotlight any third parties (which may be a chicken and egg scenario). Electoral college. Etc.

[Funkyterrance]

TGD - Third parties don't succeed because the funding mechanisms in the United States benefit the two major parties. The two major parties don't engage with any third parties. The national media does not spotlight any third parties (which may be a chicken and egg scenario). Electoral college. Etc.

Do you really think this is the reason that third parties don't succeed?
I suppose the media contributes but the people I discuss politics with (limited I'll admit) seem more concerned with "fitting in" to a party and "not wasting their vote" than impressed by media coverage. If you belong to one of the major parties it's like you are part of a club/clan and this is very attractive to many people. It sounds silly but by my personal experience it's true.

[thegreekdog]

TGD - Third parties don't succeed because the funding mechanisms in the United States benefit the two major parties. The two major parties don't engage with any third parties. The national media does not spotlight any third parties (which may be a chicken and egg scenario). Electoral college. Etc.

Do you really think this is the reason that third parties don't succeed?
I suppose the media contributes but the people I discuss politics with (limited I'll admit) seem more concerned with "fitting in" to a party and "not wasting their vote" than impressed by media coverage. If you belong to one of the major parties it's like you are part of a club/clan and this is very attractive to many people. It sounds silly but by my personal experience it's true.

Maybe. I think there's a sense of "I like voting for someone who wins" maybe. I contemplated voting for Obama in 2008 because I wanted to vote for the first half-white president, but decided against it.