Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 179

When dems win especially Warren I'm worried that the US might face a worse recession than in 2008 actually.
There's a big bubble, even Trump said that BEFORE he was elected in one of the debates with hillary - he just postponed the burst of it with his Tax policies and made it even worse for his self-serving narcissistic reasons.

It's gonna get really ugly when you hit the brakes too quickly, especially if she starts pumping out executive orders for some of these more radical proposals AND rakes up spending at the same time

It's fine they ll print a bunch of monez again

On November 07 2019 08:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: Also my preferred method of redistribution is 'build strong public institutions', make public inner city schools have equal funding and equal quality and density of teachers as private suburban schools do, same with healthcare. Not a big fan of just giving people some money, at least not as a stand-alone solution.

Thats how virtually every country in the world attempt to do.


Why do you prefer that over giving people enough money (way more actually) that would cover those same services?, you get enough money to pay for healthcare insurance, to pay for a good private school, to put in a saving account when old etc.

Cause.... there shouldn't be a big difference in education between private and public schools. West and North Europe are a pretty good example of that, teachers actually have good social status, but also have to cover good requirements. By having others have the same services its actually better for you as well in the long run, especially if its on a global scale. Not really a hard concept to grasp

even if it were equal (which in most of the world they aren't), why would it be better to run a monolithic bureocratic multibillion dollar juggarnaut in charge of all the education than localism, small and medium school with different teaching systems run individually?

It might be not difficult to grasp to you, but it is to me, so indulge me please.

I'm actually fine with private schools as long as they're not profit driven but operate from a different pedagogical foundation. We have that in Norway and some people who don't really fit in the regular school system can thrive in some alternative systems.

But if you add the option of charging different amounts and extracting profit, you end up with differently tiered schools where kids from rich parents get much better education than kids from poor parents which further cements social status (which I consider fundamentally unfair).

On November 07 2019 22:44 Spitfiree wrote: It's fine they ll print a bunch of monez again

hahaha Obama 2.0 in da house
and cmon man it's not printing money it's "quantitative easing" :D

I mean the fed just lowered interest rates to 1.5%
just to put this into perspective they were at 5% in 2007
and look at SP500 levels

This is gonna be brutal when it bursts either way
Might be better for warren to win, raise taxes, force a massive recession then start printing money then let trump keep inflating it with his policies.

The huge issue are her massive spending proposals though

It's really easy Baal, if you threat the educational system like a market, you're gonna end up with the same thing the USA has which is complete garbage.

In the mean time what Drone said for Norway is also true for a lot of other European nations, where the private schools are still allowed, but they are not allowed to be profit-driven, thus they are not a competition to other schools and the "spread" quality of education is within very low margins, thus everyone gets good education


And again its not really that easy of a problem, its more of a society-related problem, since we have the same situation here, except schools and universities just abuse the government and print money, you get a bachelor/master/doctorate with close to zero effort and everyone is still stupid as fuck, while teachers still make low amount of money and are viewed by society as lazy-ass, non-achieving people, that could do nothing else so they decided to teach. Which is also true on many levels cause the requirements for teachers are hilarious and so is the educational system.


It's really not just a matter of where the finances come from, but if you isolate it to that part, I dont think free market is a good solution to that.

Kind of funny light trolling by Warren here:

https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax

I'm not completely sold on a wealth tax, but 6% is actually the perfect number in that's what you can generally expect to normally gain from just holding in the stock market. So even with Warren's supposedly ultra-socialist plan billionaires' net worths won't change from year to year.

On November 07 2019 03:46 Baalim wrote: If I were to offer you to cover all your losses but you keep all your profits of the next hand in poker you would naturally go all-in and who is to blame for this situation, you for being greedy or me for being an idiot?

I don't have a problem with your reasoning, and I think its a legit criticism of the bailouts (Sanders is heavily anti-bailout btw) I just don't see "an offer" as actually occurring. Its more of a case of degen shoving 27o simply because they're a degen. The consequences weren't really part of the thought process otherwise they wouldn't be making dumb moves in the first place.

You don't think she will start printing money and bailing out large companies when the bubble bursts NMcNasty?
That's actually a ruthless (and arguably correct in the long run) hard capitalist stance, hard to imagine a populist like her would be willing to take the hit?

On November 08 2019 20:20 LemOn[5thF] wrote: You don't think she will start printing money and bailing out large companies when the bubble bursts NMcNasty?

Not the bailouts, but I don't think there is really anyone who just supports bailouts on a perpetual basis, the most support you'll get is admitting that it was one-time necessary ugly fix to an emergency situation.

Quantitative easing and low interest rates are different. I'm really not that opposed to the idea of printing more money to ease the damage of a recession. The fear is runaway inflation, but from experience we can see that that just didn't happen.

On November 08 2019 08:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm actually fine with private schools as long as they're not profit driven but operate from a different pedagogical foundation. We have that in Norway and some people who don't really fit in the regular school system can thrive in some alternative systems. But if you add the option of charging different amounts and extracting profit, you end up with differently tiered schools where kids from rich parents get much better education than kids from poor parents which further cements social status (which I consider fundamentally unfair).

Yes you get unequal education but overall better education quality.

How does it work in Norway, you get assigned to a school depending on where do you live? that also leads to (lesser) randomized inequality as it happens in the US where poor districts go to shitty schools

On November 08 2019 19:18 Spitfiree wrote: It's really easy Baal, if you threat the educational system like a market, you're gonna end up with the same thing the USA has which is complete garbage. In the mean time what Drone said for Norway is also true for a lot of other European nations, where the private schools are still allowed, but they are not allowed to be profit-driven, thus they are not a competition to other schools and the "spread" quality of education is within very low margins, thus everyone gets good education And again its not really that easy of a problem, its more of a society-related problem, since we have the same situation here, except schools and universities just abuse the government and print money, you get a bachelor/master/doctorate with close to zero effort and everyone is still stupid as fuck, while teachers still make low amount of money and are viewed by society as lazy-ass, non-achieving people, that could do nothing else so they decided to teach. Which is also true on many levels cause the requirements for teachers are hilarious and so is the educational system. It's really not just a matter of where the finances come from, but if you isolate it to that part, I dont think free market is a good solution to that.

Private american schools a pretty good, its the state ones that are atrocious.

I mean I get Drone's agument about leading to unequal education quality, I dont get your's, its kind of all over the place.

On November 08 2019 19:46 NMcNasty wrote: I don't have a problem with your reasoning, and I think its a legit criticism of the bailouts (Sanders is heavily anti-bailout btw) I just don't see "an offer" as actually occurring. Its more of a case of degen shoving 27o simply because they're a degen. The consequences weren't really part of the thought process otherwise they wouldn't be making dumb moves in the first place.

Sanders isn't anti-bailout, he is anti-bailing out banks, but he wans to bailouts students, which will do precisely the same things, give tax-payer money to the financial sector who lended all that money.

The banks aren't degens, quite the opposite, they are huge nits who rarely make risky investments, they aren't going to lend money to people with awful credit rating for a house unless there is a moral hazard, they aren't going to lend money to teens wanting to study gender studies unless there is a moral hazard, (in the student loan case the specific laws that prevent defaulting and now the announcement of every democrat about bailing out students).

yang said you can just cancel student debt because the universities have been paid and tell lenders to go fuck themselves

What's the % of loans that are provided on the federal level and privately?
I just see the 1.41tn number
https://www.investopedia.com/student-...t-2019-statistics-and-outlook-4772007

I assume a large % you'd say go fuck yourself is the state itself (prove me wrong - find the data)
so you are indeed bailing out existing students by state.

Again it seems like total populist bullshit to abolish the debt before hiking taxes for everyone and making college free
You'll just start raking it up again and it changes nothing. And the people with the debt made the decision to go to college fully knowing they will have the debt burden in the first place...

On November 09 2019 05:28 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2019 19:46 NMcNasty wrote: I don't have a problem with your reasoning, and I think its a legit criticism of the bailouts (Sanders is heavily anti-bailout btw) I just don't see "an offer" as actually occurring. Its more of a case of degen shoving 27o simply because they're a degen. The consequences weren't really part of the thought process otherwise they wouldn't be making dumb moves in the first place. Sanders isn't anti-bailout, he is anti-bailing out banks, but he wans to bailouts students, which will do precisely the same things, give tax-payer money to the financial sector who lended all that money. The banks aren't degens, quite the opposite, they are huge nits who rarely make risky investments, they aren't going to lend money to people with awful credit rating for a house unless there is a moral hazard, they aren't going to lend money to teens wanting to study gender studies unless there is a moral hazard, (in the student loan case the specific laws that prevent defaulting and now the announcement of every democrat about bailing out students).

you're talking out of your ass again Baal
just use basic google for fucks's sake man
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/050207/

I get your back and forths with Loco in abstract topics, but you keep making statements without just pulling data that you can get in a couple seconds...

On November 09 2019 05:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2019 08:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm actually fine with private schools as long as they're not profit driven but operate from a different pedagogical foundation. We have that in Norway and some people who don't really fit in the regular school system can thrive in some alternative systems. But if you add the option of charging different amounts and extracting profit, you end up with differently tiered schools where kids from rich parents get much better education than kids from poor parents which further cements social status (which I consider fundamentally unfair). Yes you get unequal education but overall better education quality. How does it work in Norway, you get assigned to a school depending on where do you live? that also leads to (lesser) randomized inequality as it happens in the US where poor districts go to shitty schools

Ya you get assigned one based on where you live for elementary + junior high school. You can apply to go to a different public one if there are reasons for it (your family moved and you don't want to change schools or you are bullied), or one of the few private ones if that's what you want.

I've worked at like 9 different schools in Trondheim and while there is a relation between where the school is located and the learning environment in different schools, schools in the 'poor' regions of Trondheim aren't receiving less funding, and don't have worse teachers, than schools in the 'richer' regions. (However certain areas often have more pupils with some personal challenge of some kind, poorer regions of Trondheim will have more recent immigrants with language problems for example, or another one I was in where there was an afghan kid with PTSD and I'm sure stuff like this will be reflected in pupil performance across the board. But teachers don't make any less money working at those schools, thus they are generally equally good, and funding is the same - even the 'worst' schools in Trondheim still have Chromebooks for every pupil.)

In high school generally apply to the school you want to go to based on what you want to study and what your grades are and then you get accepted or rejected and then you get assigned to some other school offering the same student program.

I'm not gonna claim that social mobility is fantastic in Norway either, but it's certainly better in the US, and you can see a pretty clear trend in that higher social inequality across the board means lower social mobility across the board.