Researcher Measures Brain Reactions To Donald Trump (cnn.com) 290
An anonymous reader writes: Sam Barnett "has been strapping electrode caps on focus group participants and showing them primary season debates," reports CNN, and there's one clear conclusion. "Seeing Trumps face, hearing Trump's voice, lights up the brain." His data captured big surges in neural activity for hot-button topics like immigration, and revealed that while Marco Rubio actually triggered slightly more brain activity among men, Trump clearly produced the highest reactions among women and overall. "The focus group participants might have been excited by Trump. Or they might have been repulsed," reports CNN. "But one thing was for sure: they weren't bored." Barnett has also used electroencephalography (or EEG) to study advertising, and in the future he hopes to also apply it to other complex forms of brain stimulation like movies and even hedge-fund investing.
This is your brain (Score:4, Funny)
This is your brain on Trump.
I'm surprised there wasn't more information about your brain on Cruz. Or maybe it scared the researchers a little too much.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is your brain on Trump.
I'm surprised there wasn't more information about your brain on Cruz. Or maybe it scared the researchers a little too much.
The liberals couldn't tell what the heck he was even talking about, and the conservatives fell asleep. So they had to abandon the study. And the Enquirer reported that Cruz cheated on the test 5 times.
Actually, (Score:5, Funny)
It's politically neutral - just the brain reacting to the orange light.
Re: (Score:2)
How DARE you not make a partisan rant on this, but criticize a stupid experiment saying nothing but Trump is bad if you need to go to sleep soon!
Take away this person's 5 digit id!
(exit sarc mode)
"The focus group participants might have..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"The focus group participants might have been excited by Trump. Or they might have been repulsed,"
My guess is both. Trump brings out the "Watch the world burn" in all of us. Morbid curiosity is a very strong motivator.
The world already burns (Score:3, Interesting)
Look around you, the world already burns. Meanwhile the Democratic answer to the fire is to toss another old log on and let it burn as it has.
The Republicans mostly hate Trump because they too don't mind the fire as it is, worming those rich enough to stay outside of it. Trump however is like tossing a mysterious pressurized can into the fire, which may well douse the fire but at least it will make sure everyone feels the burn.
The Democrats hate Sanders for the same reason but they have him on a much tigh
Re:The world already burns (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders. Sanders has a pretty solid, decades old voting record that gives a pretty clear picture of where he stands. Trump just says whatever random shit pops into his head without regard to the random shit that popped into his head last week. Think what you want about each candidates stance on various issues but, Trumps stance on everything is almost literally, "Fuck it, come on lucky 7". People want him to be president because he's got a pulpit with which to shout their stupidity and insecurity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders.
When has it matters what these candidates say or have done? What matters is that Trump and Sanders are hated equally by the political elite. Each would take different paths to whatever goals they have, in either case dismantling some of the establishment along the way. Whichever way the embers scatter simply does not matter as much as the overall effect.
People want him to be president because he's got a pulpit with which to shout their stupidity and
Re:The world already burns (Score:4, Interesting)
This utter misunderstanding of Trump supporters (and frankly Trump himself) is why people cannot understand how Trump keeps winning and will continue to be so wrong about future success.
No. I will paraphrase another quote I read here on /. "People are dumb and angry. They don't know why they are angry but, they know that Trump seems to be addressing some form of anger". People who vote for Trump because they think he'll directly change society for the better are idiots. Other people (such as myself) will vote for Trump because we know he will be so fucking disastrous that it may cause real and positive changes to our political system. It's a gamble, to be sure. He could start WW3. As long as he doesn't start WW3, I imagine that his presidency will have a positive legacy on our political system. I just hope we can endure his reign.
Re:The world already burns (Score:5, Insightful)
I will paraphrase another quote I read here on /. "People are dumb and angry. They don't know why they are angry but, they know that Trump seems to be addressing some form of anger".
Actually, that's close to the mark. The appeal of Donald Trump arises from two factors: (1) he taps into peoples' fears; and (2) he presents himself as the "tough guy" who can eliminate the cause of those fears. In short, he appeals to authoritarians. [vox.com]
People who vote for Trump because they think he'll directly change society for the better are idiots.
Really? Because you go on to say:
Other people (such as myself) will vote for Trump because we know he will be so fucking disastrous that it may cause real and positive changes to our political system.
Considering how intertwined society and political systems are, I'd say you're contradicting yourself.
It's a gamble, to be sure. He could start WW3. As long as he doesn't start WW3, I imagine that his presidency will have a positive legacy on our political system. I just hope we can endure his reign.
So, it sounds like you're an anarchist, and you're willing to gamble with the future of the human species in order to advance your agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
So, it sounds like you're an anarchist, and you're willing to gamble with the future of the human species in order to advance your agenda.
I don't know that I have an agenda but, yes, I'm an anarchist, I'm willing to gamble a bit on the future of mankind. Frankly, the status quo doesn't look like it's going to lead us into a bright new future. The D/R establishment has us in the quintessential "slow boil". I think Trump might be terrible enough that we notice that the water is boiling.
Sanders' voting record (Score:3)
I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders. Sanders has a pretty solid, decades old voting record that gives a pretty clear picture of where he stands.
Sanders voted to increase H1B visas [senate.gov] at the last round of voting.
How can you support Sanders when he doesn't care whether you (and in the future, your children) have jobs?
Re:Sanders' voting record (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think I said I supported Sanders. I just said that he had a consistent and verifiable voting record. I think that's kind of his charm. He may or may not be a crazy old man, he may or may not have voted for/against your pet issue. But, if he says he's for/against something, he tends to back those words up with his votes. I don't mind tipping my hat to someone like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sanders voted to increase H1B visas [senate.gov] at the last round of voting.
How can you support Sanders when he doesn't care whether you (and in the future, your children) have jobs?
I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
Re:Sanders' voting record (Score:4, Interesting)
I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
You have a valid point, and one that deserves an answer.
In past decades, free trade agreements were sold to the American public as a way to become richer. Economists admitted that wages would stagnate, but pointed out that goods and services from abroad would be much cheaper so that overall we would be richer.
Wages would stagnate, but costs would go down faster than what wages would have risen.
It's now several decades later, manufacturing has moved to Mexico and China and India, wages have indeed stagnated, and there are Chinese dollar stores everywhere.
The problem with this model is that the benefits went mostly to the rich, while the middle class was gutted. We can look at the past couple of decades with perfect hindsight and see income inequality skyrocket while employment tanked.
Keeping jobs local forces the rich to pay more to produce goods, and acts to prevent this inequality. The extra expenses go into the local economy and benefits Americans, instead of benefiting a people in other countries.
In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
Maybe we should outsource all our jobs to other countries. That would work just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-hating whites think that self-mutilation is the highest form of morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders wants to jack up the sanctions against Russia, and he also wants to continue the crazy policy of waging war against BOTH SIDES in Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the BOTH SIDES in a three or more sided conflict?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. He must be confusing Trump with Ted Cruz.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile the Democratic answer to the fire is to toss another old log on and let it burn as it has.
I'm pretty sure the democratic answer is hope and change. Didn't you know that?
Re: (Score:2)
People are willing to vote for Bernie or Trump because they hope this time there will be change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look around you, the world already burns
As I sip my latte the only burning I see is in partisan rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
According to statistician Nate Silver's site, the strongest predictor of the amount of support for Donald Trump in a given region is the number of Google searches for racist content. No other demographic indicator even comes close.
According to Nate Silver's site, congressional endorsements are a better predictor of who will win the primary elections than polling data.
Oh wait, strike that. That was last November, I still have to catch up on his current position.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't conflate prediction with perfect correlation. One is a numerical analysis with built-in error. The other is simply a representation of data. And the data shows a perfect correlation between the number of racist Google searches in a region and the level of support for Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Though candidates have attempted a run from the grass roots activism of race baiting, the success enjoyed has never rivaled what this guy is doing.
Why? What has changed? Perhaps the Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, Eric Garner phenomenon has resonated poorly with some segments of society.
Best joke ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
All those anti trump people have yet to offer one single alternative to trump.
'He's a nazi we hate him!'
Ok. what's you're suggestion?
'He's a nazi and we hate him!'
You're really not helping...
Bottom line is... Clinton is one evil bitch for sale to the highest bidder. Sanders doesn't stand a chance anymore. And cruz is a grade A jesus freak
So unless you want 4/8 more years of the same ol shit. Trump is it. And he's going to win.
Reality tv? fuck that we have reality politics! gonna be entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Obama, much worse (Score:2)
Tell me with a straight face you want even four years with this robot [c-span.org] at the helm of the country. You do know the Clinton foundation makes money from arms dealers too [ibtimes.com] right? Why do you think she started a needless war in Libya? At least Bush had some motive of saving someone, not just pure profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Hillary did that? She's far more capable than I thought possible given past performance.
It's a bit funny to see a Republican cheerleader not only complain about the removal of Ghaddaffi but to give a bystander reacting after the fact the credit for it.
She's done a lot worse in reality. Try harder. The Manning leak will help.
Re: (Score:3)
In contrast, Obama has:
decreased debt % of GDP (see CBO)
What crack are you smoking? Debt has passed 100% GDP and keeps going up as a % of GDP.
resolved ballooning hospital operating costs (see ACA)
Bwahhahha... Oh crap, you actually think that?
Re:Not Obama, much worse (Score:4, Informative)
You're very wrong. Look at the graph here, and you'll see current debt as % GDP is below the average for the past 50 years.
Learn the difference between debt and deficit and you won't make that mistake...
We're approaching 20 trillion in debt, that is going to kill us sooner or later...
Re: (Score:2)
4-8 more years of obama-style presidency is by far the superior choice
You say that now, but in the long run you'd be sorry for that choice...
But that's ok, plenty of people like to vote against their own best interest...
The United States has no future under its current system, something has to give. That is why Trump is doing so well, a large number of people can tell that it is broken and change is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama-style:
- Send in NGOs to destabilize countries (Ukraine, Syria)
- Wage war against BOTH SIDES in Syria.
- Break UN-resolutions and invade countries (Libya)
- Send small groups of killers into so many countries that it's not even reported in the media anymore (Pakistan, Yemen, Uganda and certainly some others we haven't heard yet)
- Bush was bad (broke international law and acted unilaterally) but Obama is much worse (did all that Bush did but he doesn't even tell anybody anymore - or do you remember a publ
Joke is on you, as you are electing Trump (Score:2)
and quite probably get us all killed in a nuclear war within 2 years?
You mean of course the nuclear war with Iran that Obama has personally made sure will occur.
Whoever the next president is has nothing to do with the fact America and/or Europe will be hit with nuclear weapons in the next few years.
Hell I'd vote for C'thu'lu over Trump.
So sad to see a handful of otherwise intelligent people so utterly fail to understand what Trump is about and in so doing basically have the opposite impact of trying to stop
Re: (Score:2)
You cant have a nuclear war with Iran, they have no nuclear weapons. Just like Iraq had no WMD.
The cognitive dissonance and outright ignorance shown in your post is astonishing, a quick look at history shows Iran has never started a war in modern times, whereas the US Relies on war to support its economy.
Your silly paranoia about Obama is making you look even more stupid than usual, and thats saying something for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Since he's a deliberate bullshit fountain of course so many people utterly fail to understand what Trump is about. All we can do is look at his past actions since his words can not be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Every now and then I get a horrible feeling that conservatives actually believe the ridiculous bullshit they write.
Re: (Score:2)
But he was rude to Rosie O'Donnell, so we'd rather vote for yet another warmongering Republicrat who is just like Bush/Obama!
Re: (Score:2)
But he was rude to Rosie O'Donnell
Sounds like a reason to maybe support him.
The same study.... (Score:2)
They also determined that exposure to trum causes the same reactions in nematodes.
Therefore it is easy to extrapolate Trump supporters are on evolutionary and intellectual scale as common nematodes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a little unkind to nematodes. Don't you?
This is why we get Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of reporting actual news, networks like CNN (and I guess Slashdot) report content-free bullshit like this all the time. Someone must have been in danger of actually thinking about how government works, and this story came just in time to prevent that. Thinking averted, personal biases confirmed based on nothing, crisis averted just in time, remember to wash your clothes in Tide or whatever the hell CNN is selling you today.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe, nice!
Nothing to see here; move along (Score:5, Informative)
Barnett talks about "neural engagement", but this is not a technical term. Googling around led to his patent on measuring so-called engagement [google.com]. The relevant part is as follows:
“For example, if a movie was presented to a group of people, the measure of engagement could show the level of engagement the group (or a subset of the group) displayed in response to different scenes in the movie; the measure of engagement could also show how engaging the movie was overall. The method 100 preferably performs cross-brain correlations of neural data, calculated across pairs (a measure of neural similarity), as input for the measure of engagement. The method 100 additionally may function to provide a measure of engagement across small and precise time ranges. Understanding that one characteristic of engaging content is its ability to generate similar neural responses in different individuals, this preferably enables the method 100 to operate without the need to specify a model for the neural processes of engagement.”
So as far as I can tell, the fact that Trump generated higher levels of engagement means the EEG responses he elicited in viewers were more correlated with each other than were the EEG responses elicited by other candidates. This could potentially be interesting, but not without a process model explaining why. Even taking this associative, non-experimental method at face value, here's a plausible hypothesis that would render this result totally uninteresting: Everyone has seen and heard Donald Trump a lot. The same cannot be said for, say, John Kasich. It seems reasonable to me that frequent stimuli would be more likely to elicit common responses.
Maybe this hypothesis is correct; maybe it's not. The point is that without doing the hard work of showing they understand what their analytic technique measures, the results are totally uninterpretable. You can't even say that "Viewers weren't bored" without knowing what the correlations between the EEG responses of bored people would generate!
tl;dr: A poorly-designed and as-yet unpublished EEG study leads to an uninterpretable result that generated news coverage because readers like it when their latent beliefs are covered with a veneer of scientific acceptability.
(Professional quibble with the write-up: The term "lights up the brain" is neuroscientific slang used exclusively with methods like fMRI that tell you which regions of the brain are active. I know no neuroscientist who would say the brain is "lit up" based on an EEG reading.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and in related news, a researcher notices people's brains light up when they watch porn, Ren N Stimpy cartoons, cat videos, houseplants, and videos of focus group participants with electrode caps strapped onto their heads. ...further research found strapping electrode caps on focus group participants makes their brains light up, because focus group participants like having electrode caps strapped onto their heads.
Researcher says that if anyone is interested in having the brains of focus groups light up f
This is your brain on CNN (Score:4, Insightful)
CNN isn't worth your time. All they talk about is garbage like this and who said the most ridiculous thing today. CNN is willing and able to bait and troll the public with nonsensical questions like did Trump sieg heil before cutting to commercial.
Is Anderson cooper a space alien? Is Jake Taper a Russian spy? Does Wolf Blitzer rape goats? All this and more after these messages.
Apparently they can't be bothered to do any serious investigative journalism on any of the candidates running for office, provide any context or insights into political issues or even bother to explore candidates positions. It is 24x7 talking points and low information bullshit spewed from CNN's cast of lazy idiots.
Meanwhile, Watching Hillary Clinton... (Score:2)
EEG indistinguishable from brain death.
Politics On Slashdot (Score:2)
Didn't we learn our lesson last cycle? Or the two before that?
Look, there's only three factions that read this site. Socialists, Libertarians, and people that believe their pets talk to them telepathically.
Why bother discussing anything political here?
This never ends well.
So, to narrow this down ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From Scott Adams' blog [dilbert.com]:
But as I learned in school, you can’t compare something to nothing. You need to compare the risk of a Trump presidency to the alternatives. And that alternative is probably a Clinton presidency that is not too different from the current presidency.
So how risky would “more of the same” be?
Budget-wise, we are probably on the road to ruin. The more-of-the-same president is unlikely to stop the special interests and big money players from bloating the budget to the point of crushing debt.
Nor would we have any reason to expect the economy to have any extra zip under a more-of-the-same scenario. So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
And once the economy dies, we all die. So as risks go, “more of the same” might be the highest risk of all. The only way we would escape economic doom under the more-of-the-same scenario is for some unpredictable future event to change our direction in a positive way. Is that likely?
Trump, on the other hand, is an unpredictable future event that can change just about anything, as we have already learned. So in terms of economic risk, Clinton is a path to probable budget doom whereas Trump can go either way.
Re:Lie detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, everyone always forgets the President is in charge of the budget.
Oh wait, I have that backwards.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress can't pass a budget that the President won't sign, so it goes both ways.
Our current President has been impossible to work with, so in return Congress has largely refused to work with him, that also goes both ways, but since he is one and they are many, he needed to show leadership.
Which he doesn't have.
Clinton? Congress won't work with her either, so more of the same.
Re:Lie detector (Score:4, Informative)
Our current President has been impossible to work with, so in return Congress has largely refused to work with him
Bullshit. The Republicans in Congress have opposed practically every goddamn thing he's put forth, starting with "make him a one-term president", to refusing to consider anything he's proposed even when it was something they originally came up with. And now the Republicans won't even consider holding hearings on a Supreme Court nominee, which is their fucking job.
The Republicans shut down the government rather than work with him, or did that little fact slip your memory?
So don't give me this fucking horsecrap about how he's been "impossible to work with", it's just plain bullshit. The obstructionism Obama has received has exceeded anything I've seen in 50+ years of watching our government at work. Form the Birtherism crap to the "he's a Muslim" nonsense, this Congress has been blatantly partisan in the extreme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans shut down the government rather than work with him, or did that little fact slip your memory?
When "working with him" means doing what he wants, what exactly would you expect?
Obama walked in and thought he could do what he wanted. Thus you've gotten 8 years of a bunch of nothing, other than the disaster that ACA has been, and even that was only passed due to a one day gap in the Senate and couldn't have been done any other day.
Re:Lie detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm 12,000 miles away and I've recently heard republican senators say that they would not confirm anybody for SC justice that Obama picked, simply because Obama picked them. That is childish obstructionism and a clear dereliction of duty
Nonsense... The Senate doesn't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm...
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
The Senate has unlimited power to reject any and all people nominated by the President, it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
Re: (Score:3)
it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
Which is EXACTLY what he did. His nomination is someone the republicans publically said would be a good pick right up until Obama nominated him.
At this point Obama could nominate Scalia's clone and the Senate STILL wouldn't confirm just because Obama nominated him.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is EXACTLY what he did.
Meh, almost kinda sorta... He was fine in the past for non-SCOTUS positions, but he is too liberal to replace Antonin Scalia.
It would shift the balance on the SCOTUS, which is already too far left.
At this point Obama could nominate Scalia's clone and the Senate STILL wouldn't confirm just because Obama nominated him.
Don't be silly, of course they would.
Re:Lie detector (Score:5, Insightful)
They refuse to hold hearings. Isn't that the minimum due diligence?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is just political posturing. If Obama actually nominated someone with the viewpoints and stance of Scalia, the Senate would confirm him in 2 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
That edginess
Re: (Score:2)
Doublethink is the price of conservatism.
Re:Lie detector (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton has pissed in too many cereal bowls, made too many backroom deals. She's damaged goods...
Frankly, the R controlled Congress could work with Sanders better than it could Clinton, he at least is honest about his viewpoints and isn't bought and paid for.
While I disagree with many things Sanders says, I do respect him. Clinton? Nope, she's dog meat as far as I'm concerned, nothing she says means anything because she just lies, lies, and lies.
If she is on the Ticket, then it doesn't matter who the other name is, the ballot might as well say:
[ ] Clinton
[ ] Not-Clinton
If it ended up being Sanders vs. Trump, I'd actually have to give that some thought, because while he is a socialist, Trump is a bit nuts.
Reality is somewhere in between the two of them. Shame we can't toss them in a blender and take the best parts out and throw away the trash of both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Clinton = Corrupt, evil. Sanders = Far left but an honest good person.
I wouldn't say Trump is nuts, more like brutally honest. What's crazy is not pandering to the media and all the politically correct crowd.
Re: Lie detector (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those not familiar with U.S. Federal budgeting, the President traditionally submits a budget proposal every year. There is no legal requirement to do so, but it has been done since the first President. The budget submitted has no legal significance at all and is sometimes simply ignored by the House of Representatives. The Constitution requires all legislation related to authorization and appropriation must originate with the House. Once approved by the House, it moves to the Senate. They may amend the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me the Republicans are the ones to always cave.
And you speak as though compromise is a good thing..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, everyone always forgets the President is in charge of the budget.
Oh wait, I have that backwards.
And don't forget the two big levers on his desk, marked "Gas Prices" and "Stock Market", which everyone apparently believes he can yank back and forth at will.
The fact is that the president controls almost nothing. He has some influence, but not much. In most cases he deserves neither the blame nor the credit for most of what goes on in the country.
The president has to work very hard to make things better, and making things better is an uncertain outcome, even with the best of intentions.
The sad corollary t
Re: (Score:3)
Can anyone spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted post from Scott Adams?
Re:Lie detector (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted post from Scott Adams?
No, but I can spot the fallacy in your statement. The first instance of the word "the." ;)
Re:Lie detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Then let me help you:
Note the confluence of "probably", "unpredictable" and "can change just about anything".
Think about ceilings and floors. Give it a little time, it will come to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You overestimate the mental capabilities of the typical /. poser. (No, not a typo.)
Re: (Score:3)
Give it a little more time, and you'll figure out why I pointed out the word "the." Why would I say that? Would it imply that I didn't find any, or does it actually say something else?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about Adams, but "budget-wise" we can go on indefinitely, much more "smoothly" under Clinton than Trump, by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust NY times when it comes to Trump or Trump related facts. The reason is simple: they hate Trump more than they like the truth.
I went in and checked their fact check. They have one stating that America has the highest tax rate in the world. NYT states Denmark has the highest tax rate. That would be bad news for Sanders as he seems to want to copy Denmark.
However doing a bit of digging, Trump says America has the highest tax rate "for companies". I don't recall the numbers offhand, but for compani
Re: (Score:2)
The link was to a story that has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Lie detector (Score:2, Informative)
The important point (which gets confused) is that the US has one of the higher "official" corporate tax rates BUT the actual amount taxes paid by corporations is among the lowest (because of special deductions and loopholes) .
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source [wikipedia.org]). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014
Then let's eliminate income taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source [wikipedia.org]). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014 alone. If I am going $5000 in debt each year, but my total net worth is growing by $10,000 each year, I am still in a pretty good position.
The risk of damaging the economy with drastic measures is far more dangerous than going a few trillion more in debt. Current federal debt levels are really not that bad when put into perspective, although understandably it is very hard for people to put $500 billion in perspective. But to make it easier, the US is a household with a $248,000 house with $38,000 left on their mortgage, and a family budget losing about $100 per month. That is not a dire situation.
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
This would be even better than your analogy of going into debt by $5K while increasing in value by $10K each year.
Why don't we do that then?
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
(A rhetorical question to illustrate just how ridiculous your explanation is. It doesn't hold up when taken to its logical conclusion.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you could. That would basically end up collecting taxes through inflation rather than explicitly, but is perfectly doable.
People still haven't fully made the leap of abstraction from gold standard to fiat currency.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
I never said we are increasing our national value by $10 trillion per year. I said one segment increased its value by that amount in a single year. It would take far more than a single Slashdot post to detail the entirety of the USA's financial position; those figures were meant only to put these dollar values in perspective (as I mentioned in my post).
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
Because regardless of how good the financial position of the USA is, it still needs funding. It couldn't borrow money forever with no intention of every payi
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree that debt as measured by picture fiscal policy isn't a significant risk.
What I find at risk in the economy is any sense of wage growth or the ability of the economy to sustain something like a middle class. My gut instinct is that historically, political economies tend towards plutocracies where significant control is in the hands of a small number of very rich people. A political economy with a viable democracy, a middle class and socioeconomic mobility are unusual byproducts of a set of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
By this logic, cancer patients should try jumping off cliffs. "Since you are going to die anyway, anything is worth trying!" only sounds logical to fools.
The correct thinking is -- "No matter how bad you think things are now, it definitely could get worse." This applies to everything as long as you live, you could only hit "rock bottom" when you are dead.
Re: (Score:2)
I think once you go hyperbole the whole discussion is already lost anyways.
"road to ruin"
"crushing debt"
"financial doom"
"budget doom"
If you are looking at the apocalypse, drastic measures are needed right away. But taking a step back I doubt that there is such a thing as doom or ruin coming to the US. But if you believe in those things or use those terms, no matter if it is about Mexicans, terrorism, China, debt, Illuminati or climate change, the cause is lost anyways.
I was surprised to see Scott Adams' fas
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that under the previous Clinton the country actually had a budget surplus right?
We started running a deficit again under Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that's true if you look at just a few posts. If you take the time to read a bunch of them then they begin to look a bit less obtuse. Try reading a few from different time periods, when he wrote about different things, and he almost becomes a person with a consistent view. You can then better judge his merits, if you're into that and wanting to make the effort.
In my opinion, he doesn't improve much when I do that but he does improve a little. He's certainly not someone that I'd want in office or makin
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about Adams, or Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Could not agree more. Physicalists are an utterly demented fundamentalist bunch that mistake their beliefs for science.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if this were true, why would it be relevant? Why would your thoughts, emotions and impulses being sealed inside a black box science can never penetrate rather than chemical reactions in your brain make it any easier to ignore them? And why would you have any more of a motive to do so?
Scott Adams on Hitler (Score:3, Interesting)
Another excerpt from Scott Adams' blog [dilbert.com]
According to social media, and the mainstream media as well, Trump might be the next Hitler because he does things Hitler would have done. For example:
Trump is charismatic and appeals to our prejudices.
Trump approves of violence against people he thinks deserve it.
Trump blames “others” for the nation’s problems.
Trump has an authoritarian vibe.
All that is true. But it would be equally easy to build a list of why Trump is definitely NOT like Hitler. For example:
Trump is anti-war. Hitler, not so much.
Trump asks us to favor legal citizens over non-citizens. He makes no mention of race. Hitler killed his own citizens and mostly cared about race.
Trump wants citizens to be heavily armed to protect themselves against bad people, including dictators. Hitler didn’t want to arm his potential enemies.
Trump wants greater freedom of speech that would include politically incorrect topics. Hitler wasn’t so big on free speech for others.
Trump assures us his genitalia have “no problem.” Hitler had one testicle.
I really like reading Scott Adams' blog. Unlike most analysis on the planet, he seems to address the issues in a logical, well-reasoned fashion.