Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-23-2016, 02:13 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,456,732 times
Reputation: 14266

Advertisements

Folks, first if all - it's important to recognize that the globalized marketplace is just a reflection of the same capitalist principles that conservatives champion: it's economic resources of rich people flowing to their highest-return use. The rich guys get a higher return by optimizing their operations across the globe and they are rational profit-maximizing players in a competitive environment; hence, they do it. Fundamentally, the markets are doing exactly what they should in capitalistic theory. The only change is that now technology and economic conditions in foreign lands have improved to a point where globalized markets are possible. This is capitalism on a global scale... oh, and now you don't like it anymore?

Second of all, you continue to hear this rhetoric about how taxes are bad; how government shouldn't intervene in the markets; how we shouldn't "redistribute the wealth." Well, guess what - blocking off the US from the rest of the global markets and introducing tariffs IS government intervention, and tariffs ARE a tax, and those taxes WILL redistribute wealth. This is Economics 101. All of us will be paying a higher price for various goods, and the beneficiaries will be the employees in the select few sectors who are granted government protection; they will have a higher income than they would have otherwise had (of course, there will be some counterbalancing impact from the fact that consumption of those goods will also decrease; not to mention the trade war that kicks off when the foreign countries set up their own tariffs on US goods). Especially if luxury goods for upper-income people are targeted (which is what politicians usually try to do for obvious reasons), it's ultimately a redistributive tax from rich people to poorer people.

And you're all still against those higher minimum wages? Are you sure you're not "socialists?" I thought the mantra was to let the rich people keep more of their money because it's good for all of us?...

I'm not saying that government intervention in the markets or wealth redistribution per se is bad, just that it's worth pointing out the deep irony here in people who on one hand want to play the Defenders of Capitalism card and on the other hand now want the government to step in and redistribute wealth. Eek - "socialism!"

Last edited by ambient; 07-23-2016 at 02:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2016, 02:25 PM
 
4,540 posts, read 2,787,818 times
Reputation: 4921
There was a Politico article a while back that predicted that Democrats would eventually become the more "free-market" party. Trumps nationalist rhetoric advocates for a massive expansion on government not only in terms of economics but also on municipal level with increased policing: which is probably unconstitutional anyways.

Edit: Also forgot to mention "conservative" support for corporate welfare and the Military industrial complex, all of which have cost this country trillions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,794,304 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg View Post
There was a Politico article a while back that predicted that Democrats would eventually become the more "free-market" party. Trumps nationalist rhetoric advocates for a massive expansion on government not only in terms of economics but also on municipal level with increased policing: which is probably unconstitutional anyways.

Edit: Also forgot to mention "conservative" support for corporate welfare and the Military industrial complex, all of which have cost this country trillions.
Both parties have cost this country trillions for nearly identical agendas, but cloaked under very different platforms.

Two roads leading to the same plantation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7,740 posts, read 5,523,369 times
Reputation: 5978
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post

I'm not saying that government intervention in the markets or wealth redistribution per se is bad, just that it's worth pointing out the deep irony here in people who on one hand want to play the Defenders of Capitalism card and on the other hand now want the government to step in and redistribute wealth. Eek - "socialism!"
I do find it ironic. I a lot of true conservatives will never for vote for trump. That's why for the first time in a generation, the same party will hold the presidency for longer than two terms. Trump's policy is bad. Hillary might have a track record but she has been in the public spotlight for decades, anyone would.


Grow American. Don't just reshuffle the cards with less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 03:04 PM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,952,048 times
Reputation: 12122
Not many Republicans are small government anymore. If someone wants small government, they are voting Libertarian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 03:07 PM
 
45,237 posts, read 26,464,208 times
Reputation: 24996
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
Not many Republicans are small government anymore. If someone wants small government, they are voting Libertarian.
Not really. The libertarian party has strayed as much as the "small govt party"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Missouri
4,272 posts, read 3,789,619 times
Reputation: 1937
Markets are global, government constituencies are not.

The elected official has to respond to the voter who is adversely effected by global trade. Even officials who champion multinational conglomerates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top