The Cold Civil War

Background articles;

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-civil-war-bernstein-1349765

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/51/winning-the-cold-civil-war/

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/14/...williamson-cnn-town-hall-takeaways/index.html

Thank you for reading the extracts above. The purpose of this thread is not to continue the Cold Civil War but to realize that what we have now is an opportunity to UNITE and solve the problems that BOTH SIDES share.

Yes, there deep divisions in our nation and they are as a direct result of allowing those who OWN both parties in Congress to strip mine the wealth of the middle and lower class and give it all to the wealthy elite.

In order to divert attention from the real criminals who are doing this to us we are being DISTRACTED by finger pointing at immigrants on the southern border. Here is a newsflash: people crossing the border do not have the power to rip off your 401k and the investment in your home. The people who are doing that to you can all be found in and around the Wall Street Casino. They are the same criminals who own our Congressional representatives. They dupe us into believing that it is the people at the border but they are not the ones who are making us poorer or dividing us for that matter. They just want the same thing that we do. A job and place to raise their family. That is why our own ancestors were immigrants too.

So ALL of us across the political spectrum from a Bernie Progressive to a White Nationalist and EVERYONE in between have this in COMMON. We are all being ripped off and we are all looking for a BETTER future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.

Yes, we differ on HOW to make that happen but before we go there let's just agree on WHAT DOES NOT WORK for us.

The existing ESTABLISHMENT regardless of whatever party they might be is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Anyone with ties to the Establishment cannot be trusted and yes, that includes the current occupant of the Whitehouse. He TALKS about being for the average person but what he DOES proves that he is an ESTABLISHMENT hack to the core. His taxcut gave away OUR hard earned money to the Corporations and the Wealthy while taking it away from US. That is undeniable documented fact which means that we need another option for 2020.

There are a lot of potential candidates on the left addressing this issue but ONLY ONE of them has the ANSWERS and has DONE THE MATH. He has no ties to either political party because he is an OUTSIDER. Best of all he is speaking to ALL SIDES of the political spectrum and what he is saying is RESONATING with them.

So if you want to end our Cold Civil War and move forward TOGETHER on a UNITED platform that addresses the very real needs of We the People I suggest that you read for yourself as to what he stands for. Listen to him speak and make up your own minds about him.

Personally I am declaring myself to be a member of the Yang Gang, a Yangster if you prefer. Andrew Yang is head and shoulders ABOVE everyone else in the field for 2020. He has what it takes to turn our nation around because he UNDERSTANDS the PROBLEMS and HAS the SOLUTIONS that will WORK for ALL OF US!

If you want to contribute to this thread please stay on topic. This is about our CURRENT Cold Civil War and the OPTION we have to END it by choosing to support Andrew Yang. Finger pointing and immigration are NOT acceptable. We need SOLUTIONS in this thread.

TYIA

 

Forgot to include the link.

https://www.yang2020.com/blog/

 

The simplest solution(s) are often best. Democrats should stop insisting (R) policies / representitives hate, and discriminate. MSM should stop shamelessy broadcasting the democrats lies, or at least admit the inflamitory rhetoric is just more of the same 'ol identity politics schtick that democrats are famous for.

 

Let me ask you a question. What do you think happens when you tax the rich?

Do you think they just bend over, grab their ankles and pay?

 

That happens all over the rest of the civilized western world.

What do you imagine is going to be any different here in America?

 

But the rest of the Civilized world doesn't have four levels of government gouging you regulating you and second guessing everything you do.

 

Hahaha! The OP article is comedy gold!

How many more times will "the resistance" try and stoke division? It is much like their claim of "racism". It does not exist so they need to invent it.

 

Offshoring profits in global tax havens is alt-right disinformation? It's almost like I wasted my time setting up an Irish LTD several years ago though the rate of taxation is mech less than my US LLC's is.

 

Two things. First, you change the climate. Short term profiteering becomes less attractive. Second, you expect greater work incentives. Those who are higher paid are more likely to be on their backward bending labour supply schedule, where income effects dominate. And, if the money is redistributed to the lower paid, we can expect effective marginal rates of tax to fall. This also reduces the need for corporate welfare.

 

The more I read Yang, the more I recognize the thumbprint of the Chinese communist party on him.

 

Care to elaborate on this imaginary "communist party thumb print" of yours?

 

Lol says the man who knows no one who actually has any money.

No. Rich people are the business owners. That means when you tax them or their businesses, they don’t simply pay your tax. They decrease overhead and/or they increase prices.

I know. I’m a business owner. If you increase taxes on me I’m going to do the same thing every other business owner does. I’m going to do a combination of these things; cut hours for employees, cut wages for employees, fire employees, reduce employee benefits, find cheaper lower quality materials to produce my product or service, or I’m going to increase prices on the consumer.

I will either offset that tax by decreasing my quality of goods (ie mcdonalds using worse hamburger meat) or I’m going to negatively impact my workers or I’m going to pass the cost to the consumer.

What I will NOT do is bend over and pay your tax.

 

That is what you have ALREADY been doing even with those TAX CUTS!

So what DIFFERENCE is that going to make to hardworking Americans?

They KNOW that they are being SCREWED OVER by business owners.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy means that they will now be paying their share of the national debt for a change.

Increasing taxes on corporations means that they will have to pay for the INFRASTRUCTURE that they are using,

It is called PAYING YOUR SHARE!

 

What a weird attempt at putdown.

First, many of the rich aren't businessmen. They often aren't even self made. Second, as a businessman myself, I know that I cannot escape the laws of supply and demand. I know, for example, that i can't just pass on taxes to my customers. I know that because of two reasons. First, demand for my product is not perfectly inelastic. Second, I know that any such increases will encourage firm entry.

Sounds like you dont understand how market forces work. I worry about the future success of your company.

Your non-economic tabloidism is relevant. There certainly can be a tantrum like reaction, given the emotional reaction to equity. However, we know that- relative to the size of the overall market- such tabloidism is small fry. The idea that I'd give up my firm, or make sub-optimal decisions (such as reducing labour demand alien to profit maximization), is not credible. Perhaps most businessmen do have a level of understanding about economics?

 

There are also the lessons of history that seem to be forgotten by the greed obsessed. Back in the 1970's the auto manufacturers came up with a scheme called Planned Obsolescence with the idea that consumers would not care about cheap shoddy products because they would just buy a new one instead of trying to fix the crappy one they had. The Japanese came into the market with cheap well made vehicles and almost put the entire US auto industry out of business.

Consumers notice when quality is reduced. They expect a certain standard and when it isn't there they will switch brands in heartbeat. Only the Walmart segment of the consumer base puts up with shoddy goods but manufacturers hate dealing with Walmart because they gouge the manufacturers as well as their customers.

 

He probably works for a like Feinstein

 

No. We won’t. We will simply pass that tax down to you and EVERYBODY product or service you buy will be more expensive.

Which means you will pay FAR more for that tax on the rich than if you had simply taken the tax in the first place. And you’ll line my pockets. Thanks

 

Again, this only tells me that you dont understand the laws of supply and demand...

 

No sir because you’re increasing taxes on EVERYONE in the market. That means that EVERYONE has to price that cost into their business model.

Now if it was only certain businesses being taxed you’d be correct. Because their competitor wouldn’t have to pay that same tax. But because they do, EVERY business has to find a way to deal with the extra cost. And if you think they’re going to deal with that by simply taking a loss, you’re being delusional.

And my business has been running for 30 years now. I’m pretty sure you don’t need to worry.

 

Of course I do. But when EVERY business in the market sector has an increased cost. They will ALL deal with those costs the same way. Meaning that the consumers will have no lower cost alternative.

So if they want the product either they will suffer the increased prices or lower quality goods. Or my employees will suffer.

But I promise you I won’t. Before that happens I’ll shut down the business at a profit and open a different one. Putting those employees out of work and denying the consumer the product they want.

 

Your claim is ludicrous. There is only one situation where we know a tax will be passed on to consumers: a sales tax on a product with perfect price inelasticity of demand. There are only two problems with that: we aren't talking sales taxes; perfect inelasticity is exceedingly rare.

I make decisions based on profit objective. If I'm taxes more it does not impact on those decisions
How many people I employ is dependent on how they change costs and revenues. My pricing is dependent on supply and demand criteria (although, to be fair, cost-plus pricing cannot be ignored). End result of a tax on me? In Econ 101 language, I take less 'supernormal profit'.

Sounds like you need to factor in luck over the firm's decision making. You haven't understood the distinction between your tax and market conditions. Unless there is an change in those conditions (such as increased monopoly power through ownership of unique factors of production), I simply bear the costs of the tax (and work harder).

 

Donald Trump was duly elected under the laws of the land. The Resistance launched the new Civil War in their disappointment that Evita duly lost the election sitting on her butt.

 

BS. That’s demonstrably false. Any increase in costs will be offset to sustain profitability. You’re only dealing with price increase while ignoring the other ways to offset those costs.

Look at the minimum wage increase cities. Their restaurants are either cutting hours, firing employees, raising prices, reducing benefits or shutting their doors.

The idea that a business owner is going to take a loss just to be a nice guy and not pass that extra cost down to either the consumer or their employees is laughably preposterous.

 

Again, you only tell me that you dont actually understand supply and demand. A rise in production costs would be a shift in the supply. Overall impact would be dependent on demand elasticity (eg existence of substitute goods). We do not have that here. We have a tax on what we eventually make as businessmen. That doesn't impact on any of those production decisions. The impact is focused on two aspects. First, your work-life decision. As I said, that isn't likely to be relevant. Backward bending labour supply, where a reduction in net income from tax will increase work, is likely. Second, reduced future investments (ie "I'm not going to even try as the government will benefit"). Even then we know we are in difficult waters. Our tax, if its redistributed, can actually increase investment. We know this as social democracy is associated with higher self employment rates.

 

You again show innocence of supply and demand. We know that binding minimum wages will necessarily create disemployment if labour markets are perfectly competitive. We know that isn't the case. Monopsony power, for example, is derived through job search frictions. Empirical evidence, described in the latest meta-analysis reviews, confirm insignificant (and some positive) employment effects. We also know that the impact of minimum wages on prices is minimal. This is also confirmed by the empirical evidence. You're again a victim of tabloidism.