Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

---

If you are asking me, I'd have to say "don't support". I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor said here or anywhere else that I align myself with most of his positions. Maybe you are replying to somebody else, but with our good friend Yogi Bear in quaisi-hibernation and OaktownBear on an indeterminate sabbatical, do we even have any active Sanders supporters who post here in-depth?

As I said to calbear93, intelligent and educated people will come down in different places on the continuum as far as what the role of government should be in America. I'm probably about halfway between where you are and where Bernie Sanders is.

---

I guess I don't follow. Bernie wants government elites to control decisions about your businsss, your investments, you life, what about of money you can have, where you go to school, and on and on. Go back and look at that list. I'm saying the alternative is where people make decision and there is a social net private and/or public exists. I see them as different approaches. Where you draw the line on how much social spending there is can be debated, but that is a different system than Sanders wants. Go back a read that list - it is way beyond social programs. He wants the goverrment to take over sectors of our lives.

MONETARY POLICY GOING FORWARD

December's inflation rate was announced today at 7%
Core rate at 5.5%

As I had indicated a few weeks back, the FED is terribly behind the curve and will now most likely behave like a football team that needs to go into a "hurry up" offense in order to take control back over the game.

They spent much of 2021, persistently mischaracterizing inflation. First they said that it would be "temporary" or "transient". Then, their description of inflation grew to include transient factors". Finally, last month Jerome Powell did away with the phrase in a bit of a mea culpa that inflation was with us and that it was here to pose a definitive risk, unless the Fed took actions to tighten monetary policy.

Obviously, their initiation of a taper of bond buying, should have occurred much sooner.
Why? Because you cant start raising the Fed Funds Rate unless you have stopped buying Bonds.

Unfortunately, we will most likely be facing 4 or perhaps even 5 rate hikes this year, according to Bill Dudley.

The risk is that the FED has never undertaken a 3 pronged approach of tapering, raising Fed Funds, and shrinking their balance sheet in what looks to be a much faster transition. No one really knows if this is going to work out with the economy making a "soft" landing or if the FED will actually push the economy into a Recession. We are in unchartered territory here. And there is a ton of RISK involved. The yield curve will most likely flatten. It could actually invert at some point, if market participants become fearful of a Recession.

About the only positive thing that I can say is that the composition of bonds that the FED has been buying since March 2020 are of much shorter duration. It should be easier for the FED to "shrink" this portion of their balance sheet. But, they've got to get the Fed Funds Rate hiked several times before they can even do this.

During the previous cycle, the shrinking of their balance sheet began only after the Fed Funds target was above 1%. You dont want to start Quantitative Tightening at a lower Fed Funds rate, because it (A) undercuts your commitment to the Fed Funds Rate as your primary tool of monetary policy, and (B) if you emphasize getting the rate up above 1% first, then you'll have more ability to reverse course and use it as a stimulative tool if the economy gets hit with an adverse shock. Remember, the last time the Fed tightened, it triggered issues with the REPO rate, because banking reserves fell below a desired level, which made banks reluctant to lend short-term and causing rates to spike in the REPO market. This was in the Fall of 2019, and it lead to a sell-off in the stock market. - - - Thankfully, the FED set up two Repo Facilities (last July) in order to alleviate this problem in the future.

Interestingly enough, the Robert Reich's and the Elizabeth Warren's will argue that the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that they are jeopardizing continued job growth. (never mind that the unemployment rate recently hit 3.9% which could be considered the Fed achieving its mandate of full employment).

Reich would argue that the Fed has it backwards.
That the wage increases of 4.7% year over year have not caused prices to rise. - - - - And that the Fed has it all wrong when it comes to what has caused 7.0% inflation.

He and Warren would argue that real wages are actually falling due to the price increases ( 7.0% - 4.7% ) and that those price increases have been due to Corporate America raising prices and collectively price gouging. So in their minds, inflation doesnt really matter. It technically doesnt exist from a pure textbook definition. It's highly secondary to their primary point that the only thing that matters are the outcomes . . . . which in their mind is Corporate price-gouging.

This question was posed to Fed Chair Jerome Powell yesterday by Elizabeth Warren. She asked why Corporations were enjoying profits at record highs and implied that Corporate America was simply raising prices during a pandemic and gouging Americans . . . to which Jerome Powell replied, "Well yes, they are able to raise prices. But it's because of DEMAND."

Our Econ 101a discussion went one step further when Warren explained HOW the price increases were happening. But nowhere in her explanation was the concept of Supply and Demand.

Warren went on a narrative about market concentration and how most major industries are now oligopolies composed of a handful of major producers that coordinate price increases.

While that may be true to a certain extent in a very captive gasoline market place like here in California where only reformulated gasoline is used in the Golden State and it is not fungible, it's difficult to fathom how every company in America is part of an oligopoly that is not at any kind of risk to competition, and thus price competition.

Unfortunately, this narrative also fails to acknowledge that we are in a global market place with fierce competition from abroad, nor does this narrative mention supply/chain issues that have facilitated the price increases that we have seen over the past year since the economy opened up from a pandemic.

But people like Reich and Warren will never admit that there are other issues at hand (namely supply of labor, materials, transportation, etc.) that are creating price pressures. The DEMAND for Labor. The DEMAND for materials. The DEMAND for transportation.

For Socialists, the blame is fully on those greedy *******s in the C-suite.

Now that schools are closed here in Vegas what role will the Pandemic play on inflation and feds decisions/movement ?

DiabloWags said:

---

Interestingly enough, the Robert Reich's and the Elizabeth Warren's will argue that the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that they are jeopardizing continued job growth. (never mind that the unemployment rate recently hit 3.9% which could be considered the Fed achieving its mandate of full employment).

Reich would argue that the Fed has it backwards.
That the wage increases of 4.7% year over year have not caused prices to rise. - - - - And that the Fed has it all wrong when it comes to what has caused 7.0% inflation.

He and Warren would argue that real wages are actually falling due to the price increases ( 7.0% - 4.7% ) and that those price increases have been due to Corporate America raising prices and collectively price gouging. So in their minds, inflation doesnt really matter. It technically doesnt exist from a pure textbook definition. It's highly secondary to their primary point that the only thing that matters are the outcomes . . . . which in their mind is Corporate price-gouging.

This question was posed to Fed Chair Jerome Powell yesterday by Elizabeth Warren. She asked why Corporations were enjoying profits at record highs and implied that Corporate America was simply raising prices during a pandemic and gouging Americans . . . to which Jerome Powell replied, "Well yes, they are able to raise prices. But it's because of DEMAND."

Our Econ 101a discussion went one step further when Warren explained HOW the price increases were happening. But nowhere in her explanation was the concept of Supply and Demand.

Warren went on a narrative about market concentration and how most major industries are now oligopolies composed of a handful of major producers that coordinate price increases.

While that may be true to a certain extent in a very captive gasoline market place like here in California where only reformulated gasoline is used in the Golden State and it is not fungible, it's difficult to fathom how every company in America is part of an oligopoly that is not at any kind of risk to competition, and thus price competition.

Unfortunately, this narrative also fails to acknowledge that we are in a global market place with fierce competition from abroad, nor does this narrative mention supply/chain issues that have facilitated the price increases that we have seen over the past year since the economy opened up from a pandemic.

But people like Reich and Warren will never admit that there are other issues at hand (namely supply of labor, materials, transportation, etc.) that are creating price pressures. The DEMAND for Labor. The DEMAND for materials. The DEMAND for transportation.

For Socialists, the blame is fully on those greedy *******s in the C-suite.

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

dajo9 said:

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

---

Sadly, youre putting words in my mouth again.

Warren was talking about pricing power solely due to market concentration . . . conveniently leaving out the concept of DEMAND. - - - Even Fed Chair Powell had to remind her of this concept.

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Interestingly enough, the Robert Reich's and the Elizabeth Warren's will argue that the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that they are jeopardizing continued job growth. (never mind that the unemployment rate recently hit 3.9% which could be considered the Fed achieving its mandate of full employment).

Reich would argue that the Fed has it backwards.
That the wage increases of 4.7% year over year have not caused prices to rise. - - - - And that the Fed has it all wrong when it comes to what has caused 7.0% inflation.

He and Warren would argue that real wages are actually falling due to the price increases ( 7.0% - 4.7% ) and that those price increases have been due to Corporate America raising prices and collectively price gouging. So in their minds, inflation doesnt really matter. It technically doesnt exist from a pure textbook definition. It's highly secondary to their primary point that the only thing that matters are the outcomes . . . . which in their mind is Corporate price-gouging.

This question was posed to Fed Chair Jerome Powell yesterday by Elizabeth Warren. She asked why Corporations were enjoying profits at record highs and implied that Corporate America was simply raising prices during a pandemic and gouging Americans . . . to which Jerome Powell replied, "Well yes, they are able to raise prices. But it's because of DEMAND."

Our Econ 101a discussion went one step further when Warren explained HOW the price increases were happening. But nowhere in her explanation was the concept of Supply and Demand.

Warren went on a narrative about market concentration and how most major industries are now oligopolies composed of a handful of major producers that coordinate price increases.

While that may be true to a certain extent in a very captive gasoline market place like here in California where only reformulated gasoline is used in the Golden State and it is not fungible, it's difficult to fathom how every company in America is part of an oligopoly that is not at any kind of risk to competition, and thus price competition.

Unfortunately, this narrative also fails to acknowledge that we are in a global market place with fierce competition from abroad, nor does this narrative mention supply/chain issues that have facilitated the price increases that we have seen over the past year since the economy opened up from a pandemic.

But people like Reich and Warren will never admit that there are other issues at hand (namely supply of labor, materials, transportation, etc.) that are creating price pressures. The DEMAND for Labor. The DEMAND for materials. The DEMAND for transportation.

For Socialists, the blame is fully on those greedy *******s in the C-suite.

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

---

One, let's differentiate between legal monopolies (utility / patent holders), illegal monopolies (acquiring competitors to get dominant market share - not sure how many there are but Trump seemed to have ordered DOJ and FTC to do closer review of HSR filings, collusion where competitors share pricing data or agree to reduce supply), and companies that seem like monopolies because they are such market leaders and the market prefers their products.

Aren't most broad scale inflation stimulated by excess demand that cannot be met with existing supply, whether the supply constraints are as a result of a supply shock (e.g. oil embargo) or event driven demand spike (people working remotely demanding more chips for their laptops, people having saved handouts during pandemic now looking to spend with all of the excess money they received from the stimulus). The reason to rotate from market leaders with high premium to cyclicals or even commodities during economic growth and inflation is that everyone has pricing power during economic boom with inflation. So, to argue that monopolies have pricing power during economic boom with inflation seems to go against the basic proven investment strategy of rotating to cyclicals and energy during inflation - everyone has pricing power, and high growth market leaders of any kind have less value and should not have as high multiple.

I may be missing something, but what monopolies are problematic for Warren? Which ones should be investigated for collusion or other anti-trust behavior?

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

---

Sadly, youre putting words in my mouth again.

Warren was talking about pricing power solely due to market concentration . . . conveniently leaving out the concept of DEMAND. - - - Even Fed Chair Powell had to remind her of this concept.

---

Elizabeth Warren:

Quote:

---

We know that prices have risen because of supply chain problems, unexpected shifts in the demand for goods, and even higher labor costs

---

"They're raising prices because they can."

Under grilling from @SenWarren, Fed Chair Jay Powell grudgingly acknowledges that corporate profiteering and market concentration are helping drive up inflation pic.twitter.com/POwtUJTEV4

— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) January 11, 2022

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

---

Sadly, youre putting words in my mouth again.

Warren was talking about pricing power solely due to market concentration . . . conveniently leaving out the concept of DEMAND. - - - Even Fed Chair Powell had to remind her of this concept.

---

Elizabeth Warren

Quote:

---

We know that prices have risen because of supply chain problems, unexpected shifts in the demand for goods, and even higher labor costs

---

"They're raising prices because they can."

Under grilling from @SenWarren, Fed Chair Jay Powell grudgingly acknowledges that corporate profiteering and market concentration are helping drive up inflation pic.twitter.com/POwtUJTEV4

— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) January 11, 2022

---

Are you labor profiteering if you realize there is more demand for your services than supply and as a result you are trying to get the highest salary the market will offer or do you accept a lower paying job to help reduce inflation by reducing labor cost? Wonder what Warren would do.

---

We know what Harry Truman would do with corporations taking excess profits during a time of national emergency and skyhigh government spending. He would pass legislation allowing the government to take money back.

Harry Truman speaking of military contractors in 1942:

Quote:

---

Their greed knows no limit

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Interestingly enough, the Robert Reich's and the Elizabeth Warren's will argue that the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that they are jeopardizing continued job growth. (never mind that the unemployment rate recently hit 3.9% which could be considered the Fed achieving its mandate of full employment).

Reich would argue that the Fed has it backwards.
That the wage increases of 4.7% year over year have not caused prices to rise. - - - - And that the Fed has it all wrong when it comes to what has caused 7.0% inflation.

He and Warren would argue that real wages are actually falling due to the price increases ( 7.0% - 4.7% ) and that those price increases have been due to Corporate America raising prices and collectively price gouging. So in their minds, inflation doesnt really matter. It technically doesnt exist from a pure textbook definition. It's highly secondary to their primary point that the only thing that matters are the outcomes . . . . which in their mind is Corporate price-gouging.

---

---

As can be seen above, my original point was regarding Robert Reich arguing about how the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that in doing so, they are jeopardizing continued job growth. For some reason, Robert Reich doesnt seem to be concerned at all with the highest inflation rates in decades. Never mind that inflation cripples the poor with higher fuel, food, and rental costs.

In any event, Senator Warren then goes on to promote a parallel to this narrative on television at Jerome Powell's confirmation hearing yesterday - - - by taking this one step further . . . when she discusses the ORIGIN of our current inflation. It's a terrific photo-op for Senator Warren. She's discussing Econ 101a with the most powerful man in the United States, Jerome Powell.

Senator Warren essentially blamed market concentration in Corporate America for price gouging and the inflation that we are now experiencing.

Of course, such a claim isnt as "clean and tidy" as one would assume, given that consolidation in certain sectors of the economy (such as RETAIL as Powell noted) have actually lead to lower costs.

And surely Senator Warren isnt arguing that all of our inflation is due to price gouging by Corporate America and monopolistic market concentration, or is she?

I mean, (as Dajo pointed out above) Senator Warren did in fact include supply/chain issues pushing corporate costs higher; which occurred later in her Q&A with Chairman Powell. But that wasnt the thrust of her main point.

Lots of "tidy" assumptions being made.
And I cant help but think that the details get lost in the translation on tv.

If you've been out shopping for staples its a daily reminder of the Supply/Chain issues that have taken place during the pandemic.

Friskies Cat food in cans is totally out of stock at Safeway and Petsmart.

It's been like this for a couple of months now. This is having a terrible impact on my Animal Rescue friends. Dont even get me started on the lack of Veterinarian care to conduct spay/neuter. It's literally non-existent and if you can even get an appointment its for several hundred dollars and months out.

Try tracking down some distilled water for your elderly parent that needs it for their CPAP machine.
It's literally impossible to find. Nothing at CVS. Nothing at Walgreens. Nothing at Safeway. Nothing at Whole Foods.

Even my favorite Henhouse IPA is having a difficult time getting from Sonoma to my local Total Wine store here in the East Bay. Friday deliveries have now become Tuesday deliveries, because 5 of the 8 truck drivers are out due to Covid.

My local public works department relies heavily on seasonal labor in order to support lots of landscape trimming, maintenance of trails, and fire breaks. They would usually offer $12 an hour. They couldnt attract anyone last Summer at that rate, so they got approval from the Town Council to get it increased to $18 an hour. They were still terribly challenged attracting applicants.

One of my favorite brew pubs has finally opened back up after finally agreeing to a new lease with a stubborn landlord, but they are having trouble staffing. Their previous wait staff is long gone. The $55,000 a year fiscal payment to stay at home (during the first reopening last March) had a lot to do with that.

A classmate of mine owns the Walnut Creek Yacht Club. He's been able to survive with outdoor seating and limited indoor seating. But the hours of his restaurant have been trimmed, given the lack of labor.

The economic dislocations are very real for both consumer and business owner.

My heart goes out to all of those restaurant owners out there, especially in the City where outdoor dining was not an option. It's a tough business to say the least, with profit margins in the single digits.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's too bad that you don't seem to understand that monopoly / oligopoly power has impacts on the supply curve so you are wrong to say that Warren did not address supply and demand. I thought she made a great point about the market power of corporations to raise prices enough to achieve record profits. She is not ignoring aspects of inflation - you are.

---

Sadly, youre putting words in my mouth again.

Warren was talking about pricing power solely due to market concentration . . . conveniently leaving out the concept of DEMAND. - - - Even Fed Chair Powell had to remind her of this concept.

---

Elizabeth Warren

Quote:

---

We know that prices have risen because of supply chain problems, unexpected shifts in the demand for goods, and even higher labor costs

---

"They're raising prices because they can."

Under grilling from @SenWarren, Fed Chair Jay Powell grudgingly acknowledges that corporate profiteering and market concentration are helping drive up inflation pic.twitter.com/POwtUJTEV4

— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) January 11, 2022

---

Are you labor profiteering if you realize there is more demand for your services than supply and as a result you are trying to get the highest salary the market will offer or do you accept a lower paying job to help reduce inflation by reducing labor cost? Wonder what Warren would do.

---

We know what Harry Truman would do with corporations taking excess profits during a time of national emergency and skyhigh government spending. He would pass legislation allowing the government to take money back.

Harry Truman speaking of military contractors in 1942:

Quote:

---

Their greed knows no limit

---

---

Not sure why you keep referencing Truman, He was underrated for awhile, but when I think of great presidents during crisis (which I don't think we are in right now - not even at the Jimmy Carter level), it would be FDR, Lincoln, etc.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Interestingly enough, the Robert Reich's and the Elizabeth Warren's will argue that the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that they are jeopardizing continued job growth. (never mind that the unemployment rate recently hit 3.9% which could be considered the Fed achieving its mandate of full employment).

Reich would argue that the Fed has it backwards.
That the wage increases of 4.7% year over year have not caused prices to rise. - - - - And that the Fed has it all wrong when it comes to what has caused 7.0% inflation.

He and Warren would argue that real wages are actually falling due to the price increases ( 7.0% - 4.7% ) and that those price increases have been due to Corporate America raising prices and collectively price gouging. So in their minds, inflation doesnt really matter. It technically doesnt exist from a pure textbook definition. It's highly secondary to their primary point that the only thing that matters are the outcomes . . . . which in their mind is Corporate price-gouging.

---

---

As can be seen above, my original point was regarding Robert Reich arguing about how the FED is tightening at precisely the wrong time and that in doing so, they are jeopardizing continued job growth. For some reason, Robert Reich doesnt seem to be concerned at all with the highest inflation rates in decades. Never mind that inflation cripples the poor with higher fuel, food, and rental costs.

In any event, Senator Warren then goes on to promote a parallel to this narrative on television at Jerome Powell's confirmation hearing yesterday - - - by taking this one step further . . . when she discusses the ORIGIN of our current inflation. It's a terrific photo-op for Senator Warren. She's discussing Econ 101a with the most powerful man in the United States, Jerome Powell.

Senator Warren essentially blamed market concentration in Corporate America for price gouging and the inflation that we are now experiencing.

Of course, such a claim isnt as "clean and tidy" as one would assume, given that consolidation in certain sectors of the economy (such as RETAIL as Powell noted) have actually lead to lower costs.

And surely Senator Warren isnt arguing that all of our inflation is due to price gouging by Corporate America and monopolistic market concentration, or is she?

I mean, (as Dajo pointed out above) Senator Warren did in fact include supply/chain issues pushing corporate costs higher; which occurred later in her Q&A with Chairman Powell. But that wasnt the thrust of her main point.

Lots of "tidy" assumptions being made.
And I cant help but think that the details get lost in the translation on tv.

---

We all know this is a shell game.

What does someone inauthentic like Warren do?

Try to win election and try to maintain power.

What will the voters focus on? The economy, including the inflation. They don't care about monetary policies but they will care about not getting food at reasonable prices, having empty shelves, and subject to one COVID-19 crisis after another after promising that the grown ups are now in power and will end the pandemic.

So Warren is pulling her reliable playbook. Trump relied on racist jibberish to talk about who was coming over from Mexico. Not even close to the source of problems or even remotely true but it appealed to our baser emotions and made it easy to blame someone for everything that was going wrong.

Warren is no different. She knows better. But she blames corporations, appeals to baser emotions and triggers the base envy disguised as morality to flame class warfare. And she is hoping maybe people will think all the problems related to inflation and supply chain are related to the evil corporation. And when they see the high prices, they won't think about who has actually been in power but may vote for her and her party to spite the corporations..

Typical politician and therefore not in anyway impactful in influencing those with a brain.

calbear93 said:

---

Not sure why you keep referencing Truman, He was underrated for awhile, but when I think of great presidents during crisis (which I don't think we are in right now - not even at the Jimmy Carter level), it would be FDR, Lincoln, etc.

---

Yeah, I dont understand that either.
142 presidential historians have the Top 5 as Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.

"Your proposals are Marxist"

"These proposals are basically what Harry Truman proposed"

"Why do you keep talking about Harry Truman?"

calbear93 said:

---

Warren is no different. She knows better. But she blames corporations, appeals to baser emotions and triggers the base envy disguised as morality to flame class warfare. And she is hoping maybe people will think all the problems related to inflation and supply chain are related to the evil corporation.

---

I'm not so sure that her "tactics" will play well in the mid-terms.

Biden's Approval Rating just registered another new low at 33% according to Quinnipiac.
Even his own supporters in the Democratic party have dropped their Approval Rating from 87% to 75%
More importantly, Independents are now at 57% Disapproval.

Can Sleepy Joe wake-up and pivot like a Bill Clinton?
Thus far, he hasnt shown us anything that would indicate that he's able to do so.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

---

If you are asking me, I'd have to say "don't support". I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor said here or anywhere else that I align myself with most of his positions. Maybe you are replying to somebody else, but with our good friend Yogi Bear in quaisi-hibernation and OaktownBear on an indeterminate sabbatical, do we even have any active Sanders supporters who post here in-depth?

As I said to calbear93, intelligent and educated people will come down in different places on the continuum as far as what the role of government should be in America. I'm probably about halfway between where you are and where Bernie Sanders is.

---

I guess I don't follow. Bernie wants government elites to control decisions about your businsss, your investments, you life, what about of money you can have, where you go to school, and on and on. Go back and look at that list. I'm saying the alternative is where people make decision and there is a social net private and/or public exists. I see them as different approaches. Where you draw the line on how much social spending there is can be debated, but that is a different system than Sanders wants. Go back a read that list - it is way beyond social programs. He wants the goverrment to take over sectors of our lives.

---

Let me say again, I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor have I ever said that my views on the role of government align with his. If I had to identify with the views of a politician of recent times, it would probably be Jerry Brown, late iteration. (generally progressive, but with a fairly tight grip on the purse strings, not a Narcissist, at least not outwardly) If that means my views are closer to yours, wifeisafurd, than to those of Bernie Sanders, then that is a wonderful thing.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

"Your proposals are Marxist"

"These proposals are basically what Harry Truman proposed"

"Why do you keep talking about Harry Truman"

---

Please link a post where I wrote either of the first two things.

We are trying to have an intellectual discussion here, Dajo. Don't resort to your expedient misdirection.

---

You aren't the only person posting here are you? If you can't keep up with the multi-person conversation in this thread then maybe you shouldn't presume to be so critical of others.

---

Then why add my statement at the end of what looks like a continuation of a different conversation with a different poster? Is it possible that you are conflating quotes from different conversations with different posters and present as one conversation to make a point that doesn't exist? Whatever.

Anarchistbear said:

---

In the time of Roosevelt and Truman there were two competing political and economic systems. On the heels of the depression, Communists and Socialists had a broad coalition in the labor movement, civil right movement and among intellectuals. Remember also that the Communists were also allies in defeating fascism. Roosevelt realized massive reforms were needed to both appease the Left (a real left not a Twitter left) and to remain a capitalist country, so return on labor was the driving force and remained that way for decades

That has all changed. Now we have the most capitalist and second most capitalist political parties in the world and return on capital drives our politics and policies. Nothing right now is changing - Warren and Sanders are marginal politicians and institutionalists with no power.

It seems to me everyone on this discussion is in agreement but that of course means little considering we are all doing well, but if you look at the ferment simmering below the surface- trending murder, suicides, addictions , lack of social
cohesion and lack of respect for institutions- I wouldn't be too sure that a rational economic discussion of inequality is going to drive our politics. I think Biden and Trump are transitional figures but to what is the question.?

---

Good stuff Anarchist.

You mentioned how communists helped defeat fascists. Your point was really on the different factions at the time. One thing I will mention as an aside is that the communists who helped defeat fascists - the Bolsheviks - had the same belief in authoritarian government as the fascists - just with a completely different view on who owned assets and allocate resources. I don't think Stalin would be viewed as some great hero in most circles.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/stock-market-u-s-corporations-hit-record-profits-in-2021-q3-despite-covid

Somebody is getting paid $$$

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In the time of Roosevelt and Truman there were two competing political and economic systems. On the heels of the depression, Communists and Socialists had a broad coalition in the labor movement, civil right movement and among intellectuals. Remember also that the Communists were also allies in defeating fascism. Roosevelt realized massive reforms were needed to both appease the Left (a real left not a Twitter left) and to remain a capitalist country, so return on labor was the driving force and remained that way for decades

That has all changed. Now we have the most capitalist and second most capitalist political parties in the world and return on capital drives our politics and policies. Nothing right now is changing - Warren and Sanders are marginal politicians and institutionalists with no power.

It seems to me everyone on this discussion is in agreement but that of course means little considering we are all doing well, but if you look at the ferment simmering below the surface- trending murder, suicides, addictions , lack of social
cohesion and lack of respect for institutions- I wouldn't be too sure that a rational economic discussion of inequality is going to drive our politics. I think Biden and Trump are transitional figures but to what is the question.?

---

Good stuff Anarchist.

You mentioned how communists helped defeat fascists. Your point was really on the different factions at the time. One thing I will mention as an aside is that the communists who helped defeat fascists - the Bolsheviks - had the same belief in authoritarian government as the fascists - just with a completely different view on who owned assets and allocate resources. I don't think Stalin would be viewed as some great hero in most circles.

---

For sure, authoritarian and brutal dictatorships that killed millions. Mao included.

Corporations right now:

🤑Laid off staff in 2020
🤑Received generous gov bailout
🤑Use myths of great resignation and labor shortage to understaff
🤑Shovel work on people that don’t have a better option
🤑Use the myth of inflation to raise prices

Result? All time record profits

— Dan Price (@DanPriceSeattle) January 12, 2022