Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Well, you make up things I didn’t say and take off with them, thank goodness you have no bias lol....
You are an extremist and you do not understand my posts you just make up what I didn’t say and act as though I said it. Making up bullshit doesn’t make it true only to an extremist

 

Let me tell you something: I used to live in Iowa, where hardly anybody lived. The farmland was so fertile that it sold for absurd prices, way more than city lots, I was shocked. Nobody was building new houses. Nobody wanted to live there but the natives, but the land was absurdly expensive, and for one simple reason: the land was just that valuable for growing things. The only thing it had to do with demand was just that, growing things, and the cost of living was actually cheaper.

Soooooo...people wanting to live in certain places doesn't have to raise the cost of living, and property values aren't determined by who wants to live there. Look at the Carolinas and Florida, people have been moving there for years to retire and Florida doesn't even have a state income tax.

 

The reason for wanting the land isn't what's important.

What's important is that people are willing to pay for it.

That's what sets real estate prices.

Your income tax statement is HILARIOUS as you seem to have ignored that WA doesn't have income tax, either.

You so badly want it to be about taxes. But, it isn't. It's about supply and demand.

 

Yet Florida seems to be doing it right, and Washington isn't. Wasn't Seattle the place where they raised the minimum wage, only to have low wage workers hours cut, negating or outweighing any benefit? Restaurants had to raise prices and add a service charge.

Bad, bad management. That's what raises prices, if everything else is equal.

 

We're doing just fine - except that so many people want to come here that it is inflating the cost of living.

Seattle is moving away from tipping. I don't know what you're reading, but there is a lot of nonsense being tossed about the right wing screeds.

And, the bottom line is that people keep offering more $$ in order to have the privilege of living here.

 

I was reading a review of a paper written by University of Washington and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

 

I'll say this once again (though it won't make it past your ideological filter):

Central oversight of currencies and trade was an idea promoted by Keynes at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, in a concept referred to by Keynes as a "clearing union", to which all nations would belong).

He was not a communist, but he was a brilliant economist.

 

Keynes was late to that party, sorry

 

Sorry to see you don't understand what you write. Perhaps you should read and cogitate on your post before you send it.

 

Yes.. and He said people had to choose to help the unfortunate out of the kindness of their heart.

Nowhere did He say the state should take care of the less fortunate, that you should force others to take care of the less fortunate through the state, nor that your Christian requirement for taking care of the less fortunate is met through paying your taxes to the state.

Thus, not a liberal.

 

Tel us again how you believe the state should force everyone to abide by your version of morality.

 

Insulting me is your Trump style. Making up bullshit and blaming others

 

I think the state should provide education for all children. I can go on but what is it that you are being forced to abide by that is so upsetting to you

 

Thank you for admitting you believe the state should force everyone to abide by your version of morality.

 

Thank you for admitting you are an irrational extremists who makes up things people never say and then goes off on them...And I am not surprised you didn’t address the question I asked

 

You know I can supply links to the conversation where you did indeed take the position that you were just fine with the state enforcing your version of morality - right?

 

I think I know which paper you refer to.

That came out early and there was significant criticism of that work, plus it is certainly not the only study the results of wage increases in Seattle.

In most of our large cities, those making minimum wage for that location don't earn enough to rent an apartment and thus have serious problems with homelessness - including among those who have jobs.

 

It is the state's job to help people that need it now, not the church's. Taxes are more effective than a collection plate anyways.

 

His philosophy admits of no solidarity among humans, and hence sees policies - such as public education, that (potentially) can expose ideological attachment - as inimical to his own interests.

 

You missed the point.

 

Accepted.

The above statement, though intrinsically sound as a basis for supporting the concept of primacy of individual liberty, nevertheless from the viewpoint of how a modern globally-connected economy functions, lacks relevance in the real world where the economic life of individuals of necessity is almost completely beyond the control of individuals.

For this reason I would posit a new, more relevant social contract for our times, namely, guaranteed, above poverty-level participation in the economy by all people of working age (achievable in this age of advancing AI and IT).

Can my proposition of a new social contract: "guaranteed, above poverty-level participation in the economy by all people of working age" gain "overwhelming consent"? If economists could demonstrate that no-one would be disadvantaged by such a policy? (thus removing the main objection of the Right - higher taxes required to support those less able to compete in a neoliberal economic system).

Agreed, but as I noted above, technological progress (including AI and IT) can allow socially beneficial re-evaluation of the "basic principles on which this nation was founded".

So I ask again, can the social contract be changed, as out-lined above?

But obviously the time has come for a 'New Global Liberalism' - the point of my reply to your otherwise well-argued and articulated post.

I just heard that China is responding to US tariffs with its own tariffs(….MAD!.....hopefully, in this case, 'only' Mutually Assured Disadvantage….)

 

Not only do I think that your proposal is a good one .. as you intimate - we will have to go that way or risk massive social instability. What are all the people who are replaced by AI going to do ? Productivity has been increasing every year since the industrial revolution began.

What was the promise of the industrial revolution ? - More stuff with less labor. We should all be working 1/2 as much and have twice as much stuff. Instead we work more and our earnings purchase less.

So - where does all this excess profit from increased productivity go ? I already know you know that answer so I will not belabor the issue.

The Oligopolies just keep getting bigger and more powerful - gobbling up nearly everything of value.

As I said from the outset - Extreme Capitalism and Extreme Socialism (totalitarian communism) end up at the same point on the spectrum - in both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production.

Both extremes are bad news. If you look at the global wealth as a pie. The portion to the elite keeps getting bigger and the piece that the raging masses have to subsist on keeps shrinking. At some point there will be trouble. It is not like this cycle has not repeated itself a gazillion times over throughout history.

History is the story of the struggle for "Stuff". I call it "the popcorn theory". As pie shrinks and essential liberty is whittled away( one more quick comment - the reason essential liberty is being trampled on and police Gov't power is increasing is in part because I am not the only one who knows about cycles in History - the rich want to keep their stuff and as the raging masses get squeezed - the raging masses start to lash out) marginalized individuals within society will start to explode.

If you have ever made popcorn the old fashion way -- you put the kernels in the pot with some oil and turn on the heat. If I say to you - "tell me which kernel will pop first" you will not know. What you can tell me though is if we keep the heat on - eventually - one of those kernels will pop .. then another and another in faster succession. If the heat is kept on - eventually the lid comes off the pop.

When I look out onto a crowd - I can not tell you which one is going to pop. What I can tell you however, is that if you keep the heat on ... eventually you are going to see more an more people pop.

 

Yet another projection to put on the ever growing pile that Jesus will be using on judgement day. Probably violates his love others as thineself and judge not lest thy be judged commandments and is thus a sin worthy of condemnation to purgatory.

 

Taxes are high because the INFRASTRUCTURE needed to support LARGE populations is greater than is needed to support small populations.

 

Debunked alt right disinformation!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/...rming-seattle-study-is-not-the-last-word.html