America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

But if every country tramples property rights I was trying to determine why there isn't more of a popular protest movement against this universally trampled right.

Because it's unpopular. Minimum wage laws directly violate the freedom contract, but it's unpopular to remove them, so we have them.

 

[Joey D]

Well, the market certainly fell off quickly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/stock-market-dow-futures-negative-as-tech-stocks-sink.html

In addition to that, GM and Ford are both talking layoffs too.

I can't help but think we are trending towards a 2008 caliber recession again since there are some similarities. Guess it's time to start pulling my money out of stocks and investing it back into natural resources, or more specifically gold. That seems to be a safer bet if we do end up in a recession again.

If the floor does drop out, I wonder if Trump will step up and take the blame? If he wants credit for the rise in the stock market, I think he needs to be prepared to accept the blame during down periods.

 

[mustafur]

Well, the market certainly fell off quickly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/stock-market-dow-futures-negative-as-tech-stocks-sink.html

In addition to that, GM and Ford are both talking layoffs too.

I can't help but think we are trending towards a 2008 caliber recession again since there are some similarities. Guess it's time to start pulling my money out of stocks and investing it back into natural resources, or more specifically gold. That seems to be a safer bet if we do end up in a recession again.

If the floor does drop out, I wonder if Trump will step up and take the blame? If he wants credit for the rise in the stock market, I think he needs to be prepared to accept the blame during down periods.

I would be surprised if the next recession is as small as 2008. Alot of that has to do with other countries being in a bad state financially though, compared to 2008.

Anything that will tighten lending standards could be a catastrophe at this stage.

 

[Dotini]

Well, the market certainly fell off quickly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/stock-market-dow-futures-negative-as-tech-stocks-sink.html

In addition to that, GM and Ford are both talking layoffs too.

I can't help but think we are trending towards a 2008 caliber recession again since there are some similarities. Guess it's time to start pulling my money out of stocks and investing it back into natural resources, or more specifically gold. That seems to be a safer bet if we do end up in a recession again.

If the floor does drop out, I wonder if Trump will step up and take the blame? If he wants credit for the rise in the stock market, I think he needs to be prepared to accept the blame during down periods.

I would be surprised if the next recession is as small as 2008. Alot of that has to do with other countries being in a bad state financially though, compared to 2008.

Anything that will tighten lending standards could be a catastrophe at this stage.

I agree that it looks very bad and also that the rest of the world is leading the way into this recession.

IMO the crux of it is interest rates. We are caught in a fatal bind between keeping the debts (government, corporate and household) in control and keeping the economy afloat.

 

[BobK]

I agree that it looks very bad and also that the rest of the world is leading the way into this recession.

IMO the crux of it is interest rates. We are caught in a fatal bind between keeping the debts (government, corporate and household) in control and keeping the economy afloat.

There is merit in what you say but I'd argue that debt has been out of control for decades.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because the show tends to be. Is it not?

Really dude? I mean, I am contrarian as can be, but why on earth are you arguing that? he swears within the first minute. Put the warning up before you make a mod have to do it for you.

Did you watch the video before you put it up or just read the title?

Because he said "Experience tells me" which means he's seen the show before or he's seen Oliver's work. Not that hard to figure out, also it's HBO and they curse on nearly everything that isn't for kids. So why you constantly ask questions to very arbitrary and obvious or already given conclusions is hard to understand, even after all this time and still seeing you do such.

Sorry dudes. I am from Europe so swearing (and nudity) is not so explicitedly censored in all media as in the USA. You have to understand my point of view any cursewords do not really get picked up on my radar when watching. I apologise and will put up a warning in the future. If there any other europeans here they can confirm that swearing on public media doesnt really stand out that much.

 

[ImaRobot]

Sorry dudes. I am from Europe so swearing (and nudity) is not so explicitedly censored in all media as in the USA. You have to understand my point of view any cursewords do not really get picked up on my radar when watching. I apologise and will put up a warning in the future. If there any other europeans here they can confirm that swearing on public media doesnt really stand out that much.

It's not censored in the USA, it's censored on this site.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not censored in the USA, it's censored on this site.

I wasnt referring to Censor. I was referring to americans being more sensitive to swearing (in part because of censoring) and nudity in media and european being a little bit more numb to it.

 

[ImaRobot]

I wasnt referring to Censor. I was referring to americans being more sensitive to swearing (in part because of censoring) and nudity in media and european being a little bit more numb to it.

Again, it’s literally the rules of this very website. The ones you agreeed to when you signed up.

 

[PocketZeven]

Again, it’s literally the rules of this very website. The ones you agreeed to when you signed up.

Yeah I acknowledged it and apologised. I wasnt denying I made a mistake. I just didnt realise it contained profanity. So sorry to you as well.

Edit: edited the original post with video link

Well, the market certainly fell off quickly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/stock-market-dow-futures-negative-as-tech-stocks-sink.html

In addition to that, GM and Ford are both talking layoffs too.

I can't help but think we are trending towards a 2008 caliber recession again since there are some similarities. Guess it's time to start pulling my money out of stocks and investing it back into natural resources, or more specifically gold. That seems to be a safer bet if we do end up in a recession again.

If the floor does drop out, I wonder if Trump will step up and take the blame? If he wants credit for the rise in the stock market, I think he needs to be prepared to accept the blame during down periods.

I am calling it now.

He will probably blame the Dems and voters. I suspect he will connect the results of the mid-term elections with the down in the stockmarket.

 

[Biggles]

Well, the market certainly fell off quickly.

If the floor does drop out, I wonder if Trump will step up and take the blame?.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Joey D]

You're kidding, right?

Oh I know deep down he won't take the blame for it, but perhaps some wishful thinking hopes he does. It'll also be somewhat his fault too if the market collapses since he was the one that enacted illegal tariffs.

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh I know deep down he won't take the blame for it, but perhaps some wishful thinking hopes he does. It'll also be somewhat his fault too if the market collapses since he was the one that enacted illegal tariffs.

He will blame somebody though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh I know deep down he won't take the blame for it, but perhaps some wishful thinking hopes he does. It'll also be somewhat his fault too if the market collapses since he was the one that enacted illegal tariffs.

Blaming the tariffs for the stock market fall without mentioning all of the multiple factors that influence stock prices makes about as much sense as wishing that Donald Trump will take the blame for the fall of the stock market.

 

[PocketZeven]

Blaming the tariffs for the stock market fall without mentioning all of the multiple factors that influence stock prices makes about as much sense as wishing that Donald Trump will take the blame for the fall of the stock market.

He did say "somewhat".

 

[Dotini]

He will blame somebody though.

He has already named the Fed, which controls interest rates.

 

[PocketZeven]

He has already named the Fed, which controls interest rates.

Has he ever taken blame for something in the past year and a half?

 

[Joey D]

Blaming the tariffs for the stock market fall without mentioning all of the multiple factors that influence stock prices makes about as much sense as wishing that Donald Trump will take the blame for the fall of the stock market.

It's not the sole reason, not by a long shot, but it is a contributing factor - especially with the auto companies that are among the lifeblood of the rust belt.

Still, the major reason continues to be interference from the government. When the government attempts to control the economy it fails spectacularly. Between interest rates, taxes, the tariffs, and sanctions it messes with the global market and causes economic hardships. Let the market be free and the likelihood of a recession goes down.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not the sole reason, not by a long shot, but it is a contributing factor - especially with the auto companies that are among the lifeblood of the rust belt.

Still, the major reason continues to be interference from the government. When the government attempts to control the economy it fails spectacularly. Between interest rates, taxes, the tariffs, and sanctions it messes with the global market and causes economic hardships. Let the market be free and the likelihood of a recession goes down.

What is your definition of a free market? Do you have an economic background? Because I fear most people who want a "free market". Dont really understand the consequences in real life.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not the sole reason, not by a long shot, but it is a contributing factor - especially with the auto companies that are among the lifeblood of the rust belt.

Still, the major reason continues to be interference from the government. When the government attempts to control the economy it fails spectacularly. Between interest rates, taxes, the tariffs, and sanctions it messes with the global market and causes economic hardships. Let the market be free and the likelihood of a recession goes down.

The market isn't free. The Chinese has huge tariffs on automobiles for example, steal technology and intellectual property etc.

 

[Joey D]

What is your definition of a free market? Do you have an economic background? Because I fear most people who want a "free market". Dont really understand the consequences in real life.

A free market is a market without government interference that lets competition dictate the outcomes.

And no, I don't have a background in economics. However, I do know that the government can't do anything right and when it attempts to "help" it screws up royally. Also, with lobbying and influencing policymakers it ends up restricting competition and creating a monopoly.

As an example, here in Salt Lake City, we have access to Google Fiber. But, thanks to some manipulating of our city council, the suburb I live in can't get it and if I want high-speed Internet I have to go with Comcast who charges more and provides a worse service. If the market was freer, Google could install its lines in the town since there's a demand for it and give me similar internet speeds for less money.

The market isn't free. The Chinese has huge tariffs on automobiles for example, steal technology and intellectual property etc.

It's not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards making it free. There's plenty of things that can be done to make it more attractive for companies to do business in the US and they almost always end up reducing restrictions on the economy and freeing up the market.

And just because China does it, doesn't mean the US needs to. Retaliatory tariffs don't work long term.

 

[Rallywagon]

A free market is a market without government interference that lets competition dictate the outcomes.

And no, I don't have a background in economics. However, I do know that the government can't do anything right and when it attempts to "help" it screws up royally. Also, with lobbying and influencing policymakers it ends up restricting competition and creating a monopoly.

As an example, here in Salt Lake City, we have access to Google Fiber. But, thanks to some manipulating of our city council, the suburb I live in can't get it and if I want high-speed Internet I have to go with Comcast who charges more and provides a worse service. If the market was freer, Google could install its lines in the town since there's a demand for it and give me similar internet speeds for less money.



It's not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards making it free. There's plenty of things that can be done to make it more attractive for companies to do business in the US and they almost always end up reducing restrictions on the economy and freeing up the market.

And just because China does it, doesn't mean the US needs to. Retaliatory tariffs don't work long term.

on the same hand, when the telecoms market was freer, AT&T ran a monopoly and crushed any competition that tryed to start up and did not allow any other company to make devices to work on their telephony system, until the gov stepped in. A freer market might be better, a free market not so much.

 

[PocketZeven]

A free market is a market without government interference that lets competition dictate the outcomes.

And no, I don't have a background in economics. However, I do know that the government can't do anything right and when it attempts to "help" it screws up royally. Also, with lobbying and influencing policymakers it ends up restricting competition and creating a monopoly.

As an example, here in Salt Lake City, we have access to Google Fiber. But, thanks to some manipulating of our city council, the suburb I live in can't get it and if I want high-speed Internet I have to go with Comcast who charges more and provides a worse service. If the market was freer, Google could install its lines in the town since there's a demand for it and give me similar internet speeds for less money.

The most likely outcome in a free market without government inteference in your example of high speed internet is that you will likely only have 1 choice of internetprovider who decides solely what service and what price you pay for its services. That is why there are antitrust laws that prevent monopolies. I understand your perception of the government doing a lot of wrong, however it also does a lot of good, which the average citizen might not notice. Without government oversight Monopolies would only become the norm.

A country has a government to implement laws (related to economy) intended to protect the 99% (the mid an low income). A free market will most likely benefit the 1%, 99% most of the time.

 

[Danoff]

on the same hand, when the telecoms market was freer, AT&T ran a monopoly and crushed any competition that tryed to start up and did not allow any other company to make devices to work on their telephony system, until the gov stepped in. A freer market might be better, a free market not so much.

AT&T being a monopoly or not being surmountable is pretty debatable.

Edit:

Here you go:

The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that telephone service is a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention."54

Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.55 In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry.56

The eventual creation of the telephone monopoly was the result of a conspiracy between AT&T and politicians who wanted to offer "universal telephone service" as a pork-barrel entitlement to their constituents. Politicians began denouncing competition as "duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful," and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. "There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business," one congressional hearing concluded.57

The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918. AT&T still operated its phone system, but it was controlled by a government commission headed by the postmaster general. Like so many other instances of government regulation, AT&T quickly "captured" the regulators and used the regulatory apparatus to eliminate its competitors. "By 1925 not only had virtually every state established strict rate regulation guidelines, but local telephone competition was either discouraged or explicitly prohibited within many of those jurisdictions."58

Without government oversight Monopolies would only become the norm.

That's gonna take a lot of evidence.

 

[Joey D]

on the same hand, when the telecoms market was freer, AT&T ran a monopoly and crushed any competition that tryed to start up and did not allow any other company to make devices to work on their telephony system, until the gov stepped in. A freer market might be better, a free market not so much.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the AT&T case. But I do wonder what led it to get so big without any other competition. I get not allowing others to use its network (which makes sense), but I'm guessing there was something in place that made it more difficult for others to come in. Like I said though, I truly don't know.

The most likely outcome in a free market without government inteference in your example of high speed internet is that you will likely only have 1 choice of internetprovider who decides solely what service and what price you pay for its services. That is why there are antitrust laws. I understand your perception of the government doing a lot of wrong, however it also does a lot of good, which the average citizen might not notice.

A country has a government to implement laws intended to protect the 99% (the mid an low income). A free market will most likely benefit the 1%, 99% most of the time.

But having one choice in a provider that determines my service and price is what I have now. My only other option is dial-up or cellular data. So it's already a monopoly thanks to the government not allowing other companies to come in and run lines in the area to allow for other internet providers.

I also can't see how a free market wouldn't benefit more people. If it's easier to create competition, it ultimately drives prices lower across the board making it available for more consumers. This means there's a greater demand and the producers end up turning out more goods, which can mean more jobs.

 

[Exorcet]

on the same hand, when the telecoms market was freer, AT&T ran a monopoly and crushed any competition that tryed to start up and did not allow any other company to make devices to work on their telephony system, until the gov stepped in. A freer market might be better, a free market not so much.

Regulation isn't impossible in a free market. What a government essentially does is forces a direction on the population that it's running, in this case that direction is away from monopolies. The government isn't actually needed though, people could decide to not support a monopoly on their own. I understand that if the established governments of the world just poofed away then getting people to cooperate on the same scale would be more difficult than it is now, but at the same time such "anarchy" is a worst case scenario. You could have opt in cooperative organizations that resemble the government and do similar work without violating rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't know all the ins and outs of the AT&T case. But I do wonder what led it to get so big without any other competition. I get not allowing others to use its network (which makes sense), but I'm guessing there was something in place that made it more difficult for others to come in. Like I said though, I truly don't know.



But having one choice in a provider that determines my service and price is what I have now. My only other option is dial-up or cellular data. So it's already a monopoly thanks to the government not allowing other companies to come in and run lines in the area to allow for other internet providers.

I also can't see how a free market wouldn't benefit more people. If it's easier to create competition, it ultimately drives prices lower across the board making it available for more consumers. This means there's a greater demand and the producers end up turning out more goods, which can mean more jobs.

In an ideal world it should, but in reality without oversight most likely the biggest competitor wil either buy competition out or push out competition like the AT&T example. The reason you have limited options is not of government oversight, but more likely your region isnt interesting to invest in the infrastructure from the point of view of the provider. Do you live in a low populated area coincidently?

For example in a free market it would not make sense for providers to build highspeed internet infrastructure for rural areas, because the company it isnt profitable.

Also a free market does not equal more competition. AB-Inbev, Luxottica, Amazon, Microsoft demolished competition and have near monopolies, because of the lack of oversight.

Regulation isn't impossible in a free market. What a government essentially does is forces a direction on the population that it's running, in this case that direction is away from monopolies. The government isn't actually needed though, people could decide to not support a monopoly on their own. I understand that if the established governments of the world just poofed away then getting people to cooperate on the same scale would be more difficult than it is now, but at the same time such "anarchy" is a worst case scenario. You could have opt in cooperative organizations that resemble the government and do similar work without violating rights.

Without trying to sound too insulting to anyone, but people are dumb. Thats why we need smart people to make important decisions aka government. But a good humorous commentary and satire take and exaggeration also of how a society in a free market could turnout is the movie: Idiocracy. The role of Brawndo is an example what is possible without goverment oversight.

 

[Dotini]

Has he ever taken blame for something in the past year and a half?

I'm not a defender of Trump, whom I consider a loudmouth New York playboy billionaire, an amateur politician and a loose cannon. But he actually has accepted blame for some of his cabinet appointments, effing up trade talks with Trudeau, paying hush money, attacking some journalists and for his tendency for making up excuses for mistakes. He, like the rest of us, is imperfect. Exceptionally so!

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not a defender of Trump, whom I consider a loudmouth New York playboy billionaire, an amateur politician and a loose cannon. . But he actually has accepted blame for some of his cabinet appointments, effing up trade talks with Trudeau, paying hush money, attacking some journalists and for his tendency for making up excuses for mistakes. He, like the rest of us, is imperfect. Exceptionally so!

He did? Do you have sources? Because I genuinly couldnt find any. The only one I could think of is stating remorse for appointing jeff session, but only because he didnt know in advance he would recuse himself. And I dont count that as accepting blame.

 

[Exorcet]

Without trying to sound too insulting to anyone, but people are dumb. Thats why we need smart people to make important decisions aka government. But a good humorous commentary and satire take and exaggeration also of how a society in a free market could turnout is the movie: Idiocracy. The role of Brawndo is an example what is possible without goverment oversight.

You still don't need traditional government in order to account for that. People already have the capacity to realize when they need help making decisions. This is why there are lots of financial adviser ads around tax season. A free market also won't preclude hierarchies in cooperative organizations. If a group of people want to gather and decide on how to do something there is nothing stopping them from appointing the best among them to be leader. In fact businesses do just that, as do non profit organizations.