a person or a company would be crazy not to exploit loopholes. I wonder how many loopholes Warren exploits to save money? The reality is, why is she not sponsoring bills, rules or laws to close those loopholes?
The reality is, why is she not sponsoring bills, rules or laws to close those loopholes?
Because complaining about problems energizes the political base more than taking credit for solving problems. (And that's assuming you can actually solve the problems, or at least create the appearance of solving them.) Amazon and Warren are both acting in their own interests based on the incentives surrounding them.
she didn't have a prayer in hell of doing that under Trump and a GOP controlled senate. Even now there's so many Blue Dogs (e.g. Democratic senators who vote in line with Republicans) that she can't get anything done.
What we need to do to stop economic crashes is well understood. Warren has written several books on it. She has spoken extensively on the topic, especially on bringing back Glass-Steagal and separating Main Street and Wall Street banks. We've ignored her because of reasons that I'll get dow
Warren doesn't know shit about economics. She's a socialist and socialism is the antithesis of a good economy. Like unicorns, there are no good socialist economies outside of childish Democrat fantasies.
Except all those western European and Scandinavian countries which are socialist under the definition of socialism used by conservatives, but not socialist when it's pointed out that they're economically doing at least as well as the US and tend to produce better outcomes for workers.
Except all those western European and Scandinavian countries which are socialist under the definition of socialism used by conservatives,
Which countries specifically?
but not socialist when it's pointed out that they're economically doing at least as well as the US and tend to produce better outcomes for workers.
Without you providing any specifics it's impossible to validate such a vague statement, but the US has higher average income, and lower cost of goods and services (meaning every dollar goes further) than almost every European country.
Let's say France, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Sweden.
Without you providing any specifics it's impossible to validate such a vague statement, but the US has higher average income, and lower cost of goods and services (meaning every dollar goes further) than almost every European country.
You'll find that those countries are close to the US in terms of GDP by labor hours and have lower inequality, and while they do have higher costs for goods and services, they don't carry the risk of being surprise-bankrupted by medical costs and have lower risks of death from gun violence or pollution. The US only produces better outcomes for its luckiest workers, not the average worker.
Let's say France, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Sweden.
All have lower average incomes, and lower purchase power, none of them are socialist according to the Conservative think tank Heritage: https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org].
How do actual Socialist countries compare eg Venezuela, Cuba and Myanmar?
they don't carry the risk of being surprise-bankrupted by medical costs and have lower risks of death from gun violence or pollution.
And the trade off is less opportunity and personal freedoms. You can always move there if you prefer it. Why aren't you doing that?
The US only produces better outcomes for its luckiest workers, not the average worker.
The US is far from perfect, but turning into a socialist state will only m
All have lower average incomes, and lower purchase power,
Because they work fewer hours, Americans work more (generally whether they like it or not) and if you adjust income for labour hours, you'll find they're very close.
How do actual Socialist countries compare eg Venezuela, Cuba and Myanmar?
A perfect example of the situationally adjustable metrics of socialism used on the right. If Americans wants single-payer health care, a strong social safety net, or progressive taxation, those are called socialist by the right. If we point out that countries that have these things are producing better outcomes for the average worker, suddenly t
But they clearly don't want that since they continually vote against it
I do live in a country that Americans often call socialist:-)
Well I'll bet real money that you don't. Point it out on this list: https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org]
People that live in actual socialist countries are almost universally trying to move to capitalist ones, why do you think that is?
In this example I'm assuming the definition of "socialist state" has been adjusted
I provided the link with the actual definition, you chose to ignore it, as expected...
why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
a person or a company would be crazy not to exploit loopholes. I wonder how many loopholes Warren exploits to save money? The reality is, why is she not sponsoring bills, rules or laws to close those loopholes?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is, why is she not sponsoring bills, rules or laws to close those loopholes?
Because complaining about problems energizes the political base more than taking credit for solving problems. (And that's assuming you can actually solve the problems, or at least create the appearance of solving them.) Amazon and Warren are both acting in their own interests based on the incentives surrounding them.
Warren is TRYING to solve problems (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need to do to stop economic crashes is well understood. Warren has written several books on it. She has spoken extensively on the topic, especially on bringing back Glass-Steagal and separating Main Street and Wall Street banks. We've ignored her because of reasons that I'll get dow
Re: (Score:0)
Warren doesn't know shit about economics. She's a socialist and socialism is the antithesis of a good economy. Like unicorns, there are no good socialist economies outside of childish Democrat fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
Except all those western European and Scandinavian countries which are socialist under the definition of socialism used by conservatives, but not socialist when it's pointed out that they're economically doing at least as well as the US and tend to produce better outcomes for workers.
Re: (Score:1)
Except all those western European and Scandinavian countries which are socialist under the definition of socialism used by conservatives,
Which countries specifically?
but not socialist when it's pointed out that they're economically doing at least as well as the US and tend to produce better outcomes for workers.
Without you providing any specifics it's impossible to validate such a vague statement, but the US has higher average income, and lower cost of goods and services (meaning every dollar goes further) than almost every European country.
Re: (Score:2)
Which countries specifically?
Let's say France, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Sweden.
Without you providing any specifics it's impossible to validate such a vague statement, but the US has higher average income, and lower cost of goods and services (meaning every dollar goes further) than almost every European country.
You'll find that those countries are close to the US in terms of GDP by labor hours and have lower inequality, and while they do have higher costs for goods and services, they don't carry the risk of being surprise-bankrupted by medical costs and have lower risks of death from gun violence or pollution. The US only produces better outcomes for its luckiest workers, not the average worker.
Re: (Score:1)
Which countries specifically?
Let's say France, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Sweden.
All have lower average incomes, and lower purchase power, none of them are socialist according to the Conservative think tank Heritage: https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org]. How do actual Socialist countries compare eg Venezuela, Cuba and Myanmar?
they don't carry the risk of being surprise-bankrupted by medical costs and have lower risks of death from gun violence or pollution.
And the trade off is less opportunity and personal freedoms. You can always move there if you prefer it. Why aren't you doing that?
The US only produces better outcomes for its luckiest workers, not the average worker.
The US is far from perfect, but turning into a socialist state will only m
Re: (Score:2)
All have lower average incomes, and lower purchase power,
Because they work fewer hours, Americans work more (generally whether they like it or not) and if you adjust income for labour hours, you'll find they're very close.
How do actual Socialist countries compare eg Venezuela, Cuba and Myanmar?
A perfect example of the situationally adjustable metrics of socialism used on the right. If Americans wants single-payer health care, a strong social safety net, or progressive taxation, those are called socialist by the right. If we point out that countries that have these things are producing better outcomes for the average worker, suddenly t
Re:Warren is TRYING to solve problems (Score:1)
If Americans wants
But they clearly don't want that since they continually vote against it
I do live in a country that Americans often call socialist :-)
Well I'll bet real money that you don't. Point it out on this list: https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org]
People that live in actual socialist countries are almost universally trying to move to capitalist ones, why do you think that is?
In this example I'm assuming the definition of "socialist state" has been adjusted
I provided the link with the actual definition, you chose to ignore it, as expected...