- This topic has 183 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM #780577December 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM #780578
FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=njtosd]
http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/So, it could be that like hair color and eye color, genetically related groups are more likely to share political opinions. It also suggests that no matter how much we think we’ve chosen our politics, we probably haven’t.
[/quote]Maybe conservatives’ responses to disgusting images show their lesser ability to think abstractly and separate their individual revulsion from the theoretical.
In talking to conservatives, I often hear arguments like “I’m successful, so why should I feed losers who don’t have the discipline and force of character to take care of themselves. I started from nothing, and I made it. So can they. They live pretty well already, so they have nothing to bitch about.”
Liberal are more likely to talk in broader terms about policies that work for everybody, taking their individual circumstances less into account.
December 2, 2014 at 1:39 PM #780579livinincali
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
How is that relevant to increasing goods and services for everyone?More consumer spending does generate more goods and services.
[/quote]It really depends. If I give everyone in America a check for 1 million dollars and they immediate quite their job and go out and spend the money did I grow the economy or shrink the economy. I have more consumer spending initially but I also encouraged people to stop being productive at the same time.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
It’s not about morals or individual choices. It’s about total aggregate goods and services for everyone.
So how is the ivory tower getting it wrong?
[/quote]Well more people working to produce something of value increase total goods and services but how does handing out food stamps, welfare checks, medical subsides, etc. encourage people to do productive things in the economy. Freeing up more money to buy iPhones built in China and enrich a company that already has tons of money isn’t doing much to help the main street economy in the US. Yet that’s where the problem lies, we can encourage demand but we can’t necessarily direct that demand to something that will benefit the US economy on the whole.
There is no free lunch or painless solution to the problem of too much debt. The ivory tower keeps thinking they can grow their way out of this problem but they are wrong. Doesn’t stop them from trying and claiming that the reason it didn’t work is because it wasn’t a big enough stimulus package. Those plans fail because they don’t understand that people act in their own self interest and often irrationally.
December 2, 2014 at 2:01 PM #780580spdrun
ParticipantFlyerInHI – more goods and service don’t necessarily equate to a higher standard of living. There come a point of diminishing returns. A person can only use one iPad at a time 🙂
If anything, the pressure to upgrade turns into a wealth transfer mechanism from the middle-class to the wealthy, and to Chinese biorobots building crap abroad.
December 2, 2014 at 2:12 PM #780582Dukehorn
Participant[quote=kcal09]Despite the clear abuse of Constitutional powers
(such as using the IRS as a weapon against conservatives) and the trashing of Israel and ultimately allowing Iran to get the bomb), why would educated Jews continue to support Obama and his party?[/quote]Maybe because we’re Americans first and don’t want to support a party which believes Moses is a Founding Father, which places states’ rights and sectionalism ahead of slavery as a cause of the Civil War; claimed that Joseph McCarthy’s blacklists of Americans were justified because communists had infiltrated the government during the Cold War; thinks that dragons still exist and are the dinosaurs of the past. [the past two weeks news on the Texas School Board “Republican standards” and a interesting critique blog of a science museum).
Maybe you know very little about Jewish history in the US? The history of discrimination/anti-semitism in the 20th century is well documented and there’s some natural sympathy for the party which pushed for equal rights more than the other party.
That’s just a start.
December 2, 2014 at 2:13 PM #780581Guest[quote=livinincali]
It really depends. If I give everyone in America a check for 1 million dollars and they immediate quite their job and go out and spend the money did I grow the economy or shrink the economy. I have more consumer spending initially but I also encouraged people to stop being productive at the same time.
[/quote]“ceteris paribus” is the caveat.
There’s also an optimum point.
Maybe giving each person $1 million extra will make them lazy. But giving them $3/hr extra might make them more productive. You don’t know that.
And what’s wrong with trying? Isn’t progress all about trial and error?
[quote=livinincali]
Well more people working to produce something of value increase total goods and services but how does handing out food stamps, welfare checks, medical subsides, etc. encourage people to do productive things in the economy. Freeing up more money to buy iPhones built in China and enrich a company that already has tons of money isn’t doing much to help the main street economy in the US. Yet that’s where the problem lies, we can encourage demand but we can’t necessarily direct that demand to something that will benefit the US economy on the whole.
[/quote]There’s a lot here. But for one, medical care divorced from employment encourages people to start businesses and be more entrepreneurial. Smart phones make people more productive. They encourage all sorts of new services. China only gets a small portion of the added value.
The US is part of the world economy. World GDP growth is important to all of us.
[quote=livinincali]
The ivory tower keeps thinking they can grow their way out of this problem but they are wrong.
[/quote]You have not proved that they are wrong.
It’s not just about growing the economy but arresting the decline. In fact, I believe that you’re wrong because a contraction means a lowering of aggregate standard of living.[quote=livinincali]
Those plans fail because they don’t understand that people act in their own self interest and often irrationally.[/quote]What plan failed exactly? In fact, the plans were successful but not successful enough.
The whole point is not to direct individual behavior but to provide the liquidity to spur aggregate productivity.
[quote=livinincali]
There is no free lunch or painless solution to the problem of too much debt.[/quote]In the aggregate, fiat money is a close at it gets to a free lunch. It’s just an invented human concept that facilitates commerce and the production of goods and services. That s the beauty of capitalism.
December 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM #780583poorgradstudent
ParticipantSince this thread is still going I’ll pile on.
Mostly it comes down to being relatively socially liberal and generally okay with Big Government. Israel has socialized medicine and it works well there. So the two biggest rallying cries of the current Republican Party are ineffective.
December 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM #780584ParticipantRepublicans are just as much about big government as Dems, despite their arguing. The programs that they propose are just less useful to the average person.
December 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM #780587njtosd
Participant[quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.
[/quote]
Wait – you can’t really be making the sweeping generalization that conservatives are less empathetic (are you? maybe I am misunderstanding). In fact, the heightened sensitivity among conservatives identified in one of the studies above would probably suggest the opposite. I have voted for presidents of both political parties and consider myself an independent. I don’t think there is a difference in ultimate goodness between members of the two parties. I do think there is a difference in terms of perspective. I also think that each party has its share of bad eggs, and when it comes time to criticize, those bad eggs make good targets.
December 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM #780588Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
In talking to conservatives, I often hear arguments like “I’m successful, so why should I feed losers who don’t have the discipline and force of character to take care of themselves. I started from nothing, and I made it. So can they. They live pretty well already, so they have nothing to bitch about.”
[/quote]
I’m sorry, Brian, but the conservative you quote above sounds just like you!!! You just have to change the object of disdain from a welfare recipient to a fat person. Do you talk to yourself?
December 2, 2014 at 4:27 PM #780589Guest[quote=njtosd]
I’m sorry, Brian, but the conservative you quote above sounds just like you!!! You just have to change the object of disdain from a welfare recipient to a fat person. Do you talk to yourself?[/quote]I’m fully aware of that. There’s is contempt and dismissal of people’s struggles. That’s my austere conservative side. Disdain, and morals have been used for millennia to keep people in check.
The difference with me is that there’s no anger about “my money”, wealth transfer and confiscation. Well, maybe a little (but not much) when it comes to medical care for people who “don’t have their act together.”
I am very surprised that conservatives think that people should have free access to the dessert buffet.
I make the separation between individual and aggregate. On an individual level, people do need to get their act together. But there are broad policies that would work to help everyone.
December 2, 2014 at 5:47 PM #780590
CoronitaParticipantLike I said before…At least at the local elections….Until CA democrats in CA change their viewpoint on affirmative action or ridiculous things like SCA-5 and drastically changes what “need based admissions means”, I will vote accordingly against every one of them locally whether their opponent is GOP or an independent…indefinitely….
Anything to deny democrats a super majority in this state.Thank you State Senator Janet Nguyen of Orange County, District #34…
Which isn’t really that bad because imho the local/state GOP candidates tend to be more moderate than probably some democrats from the midwest or south…
As far as the national election, I’ll vote accordingly based on who the underdog is…
December 2, 2014 at 5:53 PM #780591an
Participant[quote=flu]Like I said before…At least at the local elections….Until CA democrats in CA change their viewpoint on affirmative action or ridiculous things like SCA-5 and drastically changes what “need based admissions means”, I will vote accordingly against every one of them locally whether their opponent is GOP or an independent…indefinitely….Anything to deny democrats a super majority in this state.
Thank you State Senator Janet Nguyen of Orange County…
Which isn’t really that bad because imho the local/state GOP candidates tend to be more moderate than probably some democrats from the midwest or south…
As far as the national election, I’ll vote accordingly based on who the underdog is…[/quote]Exact. Unfortunately, I don’t think CA democrats will change their tune anytime soon. Especially when they’re courting the Hispanic votes.
There’s absolutely no reason to give one party all the power. We’ve seen what happen when one side have all the power time and time again. They both suck when they have all the power. I so glad the Asian voters have woken up and see that (at least in CA), the Democrats don’t really care about them. They like to lump all minorities into one bucket, but it doesn’t work that way in real life.
December 2, 2014 at 6:02 PM #780592ParticipantInteresting exit poll from the 2014 elections:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-pollsDecember 2, 2014 at 6:57 PM #780593CoronitaParticipant[quote=AN]Interesting exit poll from the 2014 elections:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-polls%5B/quote%5DIn this mid term, Asians were split nearly evenly nationally between GOP and Democrats…Compared to two years ago, I think the split was only 28% voting for the GOP… Granted it’s a midterm election, but even compared to the last midterm, it’s about 8%-10% increase for the GOP….
While probably not every asian feels this way, I know some asians do feel some of the policies set forth by the democrat platform are discriminatory against asians and this entire double standard unfairly punishes hard working individuals simply because of their race/ethnicity….Ironic, frankly…
My kid my be average at best (looks like it), but why should my kid have to work twice as hard for half the number of seats at colleges, simply because she has black hair, yellow skin, and an asian last name? Fvck that. And fvck affirmative action and quotas..
It’s also interesting there were a lot of “minorities” that ran on the GOP ticket that won this time….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.