Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey

Post Reply New Topic

If you're a smart capitalist you'll use that efficiency to help offset the hit to your profits as you increase wages for your workers. Then your workers can afford their basics plus they'll have the ability to buy a few of the luxuries you're selling etc.

In the short term it might mean your personal fortune is $25 billion instead of $40 billion, but long term you have a steady, stable , growing market thanks to the multiplier effect...

Too bad there are no smart capitalists around anymore.

Absolutely.

Can anyone really, morally argue that the Walton family is being deprived if they're taxed at a rate that gives them $90 million in income rather than $100 million/year so that the children who live in their back yard have access to medical care and a full belly when they go to sleep?

We live in a post scarcity economy. The problem here is greed.

Last edited by GoonSquad on 19 Oct 2012, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

I would say that makes a lot of sense but the problem is the Nash equilibrium doesn't allow it. The current modus operandi is compete or die. The companies that rise to the top are the ones that work off the Walmart paradigm. Of course it's a paradox that low prices would normally be a good thing, but when they reach beyond a certain limit all they're doing is collectively destabilizing the economy by killing living wage jobs and making more and more people dependent on government, exactly what conservatives like to blame liberals for. Despite what people like Inuyasha think, nobody in their right mind wants to be dependent on government these days, especially with the hostile teabag nutters ranting on about the deficit and threatening to throw the poor to the curb.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

And the problem is exactly that low prices/low wage model is driving more and more to be dependant on government subsidies. So, in effect, government is borrowing money to give to low wage workers to spend on goods and services and this money ends up in the pockets of the people at the top.

This is not a sustainable model.

In the end one of two things must happen.

1. Wages must rise.

2. Taxes must rise.

It seems to me that one way or another, all those deficit funded record profits have to go back into the general economy.

I know the 1% would rather sit on their billions and let the proles starve but ultimately the proles are also their consumers and they must get their money from somewhere.

maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how this works any other way......

Accurate predictor of the election

Bickers and Berry are very accurate, the outcome is not in doubt, I am slightly surprised by the margin of the win.


Close states/districts

Obama will definitely lose Nebraska 2nd district, Indiana, North Carolina is probably lost to Obama, Obama won by 0.32%, the unemployment in North Carolina is a sky high 9.2%. Next target. Florida (the 2nd most important state, the almost definite decider). Obama won by 2.8%, not a lot, Florida unemployment, 8.8%, losing Florida means, a very likely loss of the White House.

Next target Ohio (the most important state), Obama only by 4.59%. Romney needs Virginia and Colarado to win. If Florida falls then Ohio, Colorado and Virginia will probably fall.

The incumbent is said to gain electoral states or lose, based on that principle Obama will lose.

There are voter registration rules targetting, young, poor and minority voters hurting the Democrat voter chances.



Gallup Survey



White support dwindles: Obama lost the white vote in 2008 by 12 percentage points, but that was more than offset by a 72-point lead among nonwhites. Today, Obama has a more daunting 22-point deficit among whites, while his margin over Romney among nonwhites is essentially unchanged.


Obama needs minority voters who will vote in smaller numbers. He has a big defecit amongst white voters, costing him 6% - 7% of the while vote, based on the fact 2/3 of voters are white.

I hate Romney, but I think will at least scrape through.

Well, the problem is the market fundamentalists have their religion that tells them that competition and the laws of supply and demand always drive markets into the ideal equilibrium. Nevermind the fact that they have no hard mathematical proof that prices can ever be in equilibrium. There are actually mathematical proofs that the economy cannot be in equilibrium except under very special conditions, but that kind of math is too hard for neoclassical economists so they dismiss it and wave their hands around a lot.

Anyways, I think the big multinational corporations aren't concerned as long as they can benefit off still-growing markets in the developing world. Of course there are early signs of stagnation in China now as they are over-reliant on exports and the fraction of their population that actually have enough money to participate in the economy is not growing fast enough. That and their paranoid corrupt mass-censoring government is stifling for creative people to live under and most want to get the f*** out.

I'm not the one using talking points here, so stop projecting.



While just handing them a welfare check isn't an insult to human dignity? I'm not saying we live in a time of scarcity, Republicans haven't said we live in a time of scarcity. How about you stop drinking the Kool-aid, and learn to think for yourself.

When you have so many new government regulations that you have to hire a lawyer just to run a small business, then Government is the problem, not rich people.

When you have a President that constantly demonizes small business owners and retirees as greedy rich people that "aren't paying their fair share," then Government is the problem, not "the rich."

marshall, you and others rail about Mitt Romney's 47% comment, well seems to me, you were offended by the fact someone told the truth.

Are there people that legitimately need help, yes; however there are also people that abuse the system.

The thing is, I don't view myself as a helpless infant that needs "nanny government" to take care of me. Does being on the spectrum present challenges, yes; but I believe I'm capable of dealing with those challenges as is just about everyone else here if they would stop believing they are helpless or need handouts and start trying to haul themselves out of poverty.

I am lucky I kept my part-time job cause the economy is a disaster, do you know how draining being a part-time sales associate can be, especially for someone on the spectrum? How incredibly tempting it would be to give up cause it is challenging? Thing is, I've stuck with it because I'm not going to give up, and I have some self-respect!

Most of the 47 percent are social security recipients who for FORCED to pay into the system. In order to recover some of the money stolen from them they must sign up for the "benefits". Generally speaking the people receiving such money from the government are not parasites. More truly they are victims.

Gov. Romney misspoke when he implied the 47 percent receiving government benefits (mostly social security payments) were some how piggies feeding at the trough.

Romney is not the brightest bulb on the Xmas Tree and it would be better if he guarded his tongue. If Romney had been quieter he would have Obama on the ropes, especially after the first "debate" when Obama showed so poorly.

The way I see it, the election is Romney's to win unless he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by utter stupidity.

ruveyn

I've made up my mind that I'm not going to bother responding to you because you've proven yourself incapable of rational debate.

I have an article for you to read...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Last edited by marshall on 19 Oct 2012, 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Any model that assumes unending exponential growth is not sustainable. Eventually we must bet to a point of dynamic equilibrium where we can live comfortably or crash to another kind of equilibrium (wreckage) where most of us will be miserable.

ruveyn

While I don't agree with your statement that something had been "stolen" from the 47%, I still applaud you for defending them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Technically all but the very top bracket are "moochers" under any even mildly progressive tax system. Hell, we could have a perfectly flat tax percentage wise and the top 1% could still call the bottom 47% moochers. I don't buy that metric though. I think Jesus had a parable where he explained the diminishing marginal value of money.

Hooray for us moochers, then!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

and that social security & medicare-exploiting ayn rand was the moocher-in-chief!

Don't tell that to Republicans or the tea baggers!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yeah, and this is the problem. Those big corps are strip mining their western markets and stunting the growth of new markets in the east.

This can't last. Sooner or later they have to reinvest in their markets or the whole thing collapses.


I know the next place these guys want to exploit is Africa, but Africa is too politically unstable and too backward to exploit anytime soon.

The holy job creators are going to have to relearn the lesson that, in a consumer driven economy, you must pay workers enough to buy the things they produce.

They've gotten fat on cheap overseas labor and deficit funded government subsidies for their consumers for far too long. The party will be ending soon.


This is why austerity is not working in Europe. The handwriting is on the wall.