Political Digression Thread -- Save UP! Move the politically focused stuff here

[southslider]

^Carson (not Stonewell) was the end of the line for DNC, so you couldn't even ride into Uptown. And that was before Blue Line went all the way to UNCC. And the temporary Transit Center was where the ballpark is now.  Can't imagine where it will go this time.

But DNC was fun. Really enjoyed seeing Janelle Monae perform on the Square for free. No need to see Ted Nugent next year.

 

 

[go_vertical]

Foo fighters played the DNC as well. 

[kermit]

Quote

On 8/22/2019 at 2:41 PM, kermit said:

So @Dandy Chiggenshelp me understand why this post merits a downvote from your point of view.

Because its wrong?  CD seems to have skin that is too thin to post on the internet so I spare correcting him and leave a down vote and he still has a meltdown.  He must live in a padded room.  

First his statement that Australia "has never had a major recession" is just flat out wrong.  Many of their banks and financial institutions collapsed in the recession they had in the early 90's and unemployment was at 11%.  Not to mention just last year they fell into a per capita recession.  Some people even say that there is a major housing bubble and they may experience a collapse that resembles the US in 2008.

That article he then posted is junk and written from a establishment point of view that foolishly thinks our economies are similar in any way.  Pretty much advocating open borders and entering into the TPP like they so hoped we would.  As if not a single lesson was learned from NAFTA.  

Also what exactly does "much more accepting of immigrants" mean?

In 2016 Australia accepted 223,500 permanent immigrants.  An actual decrease from the previous year. 

Meanwhile, the US accepted 1,183,500 permanent migrants.  This does not include the thousands of refugees, H1-B visas, green cards, illegal immigrants etc etc.  

This place is just so misguided and calling for a recession year after year.  Growth may slow but we wont be in a recession anytime soon.  It reminds me of novice real estate investors saying they are "waiting for the next crash" to happen so they can scoop up properties for 50% below their peak price.  They will be waiting on the sidelines for a very long time.  

10 hours ago, kermit said:

Everyone is welcome to an opinion, I was just wondering about the logic behind it.  The  basic facts of the post appeared (to me) to be beyond dispute and they are easily verifiable so I wanted to learn about his point of disagreement.  @Dandy Chiggens are you able to provide any context for us?   

EDIT: It would be flattering if UP was big enough to warrant our own Russian bot.

 

This place should be more welcoming to view points that are outside the echo chamber.  When that recession (that everyone here is praying for) hits, this place will become a ghost town until the "next cycle" without enough diverse viewpoints to create dialogue.  But, not my problem.  I come here for the pictures. 

 

 

Yea, the "Never" statement was misplaced but the article had it right. No Australian recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) since 1991. The data from Australian government sources supports that statement.

In terms of immigrant flows Australia has consistently had a higher rate of immigration per capita than the US  over the past 18 years (and I would bet long before that).

Australia does not have open borders, but the correlation between immigration and economic growth appears to be strong in their case (at least superficially).

So aside from the "Never"" part of the statement I don't see any errors in the fundamental suggestion of the post in question -- high rates of immigration in Australia corresponded to a remarkably long period of economic expansion. Perhaps there is something to learn from their experience?

 

 

Source on the immigration chart: http://censusstats.blogspot.com/2012/06/australia-most-immigrant-friendly.html

and unrelated to Australian economics, if you @Dandy Chiggens just come here for the pictures why do you bother with the politics thread?

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by kermit

[Dandy Chiggens]

6 hours ago, kermit said:

 

 

Yea, the "Never" statement was misplaced but the article had it right. No Australian recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) since 1991. The data from Australian government sources supports that statement.

In terms of immigrant flows Australia has consistently had a higher rate of immigration per capita than the US  over the past 18 years (and I would bet long before that).

Australia does not have open borders, but the correlation between immigration and economic growth appears to be strong in their case (at least superficially).

So aside from the "Never"" part of the statement I don't see any errors in the fundamental suggestion of the post in question -- high rates of immigration in Australia corresponded to a remarkably long period of economic expansion. Perhaps there is something to learn from their experience?

 

 

Source on the immigration chart: http://censusstats.blogspot.com/2012/06/australia-most-immigrant-friendly.html

and unrelated to Australian economics, if you @Dandy Chiggens just come here for the pictures why do you bother with the politics thread?

 

I dont have time at the moment but I would like to see where Australia sources their immigrants from and how many are considered "highly skilled".  I would wager its not a free for all like it is in the EU right now.  I think I will compare the fastest growing economies over the last 20 years and see if immigration played a role in none, some, or all of them.  A side note, I do know that they depend on China a lot and this "trade war" could have dramatic effects on their economy depending on if Trump gets re-elected.  

I originally came here to post since I am involved in real estate and development/investing on a smaller scale (so this kind of stuff interests me).  I just happened to make my first post in this thread and RDF had a meltdown since there was 1 post that went against the echo chamber.  He said this thread shouldn't exist and was extremely bothered (Yet hes fine with all the Drumph/Nazi posts that followed after I stopped posting) and started following me around the forums trying to police what I posted.  Political discourse is dead in this country so perhaps I was foolish to think otherwise.  There is also a really strange dynamic on this site among some members that I wont even get into and wont participate in.  So yes, I look at the pictures and click Thanks on posts I like and appreciate and down vote posts I think are wrong.  Well within the rules of the TOS.  

This is a really well made and functioning forum though and am appreciative of it, but a few authoritarian members have kept me from contributing and becoming a supporting member of the site.  Perhaps CD will get his wish and get me banned for down voting him on a post he was misinformed on.  If not, I guess he can try writing his congressman next.

[CLT704]

500 × 489

Me just now, writing a response and then deleting it. 

[Dandy Chiggens]

You forgot your caption 

*Stolen meme and post from reddit..... word for word.  

I bet you were excited to pretend you were clever though.  Nice LARP.

[Dale]

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

— H.L. Mencken —

[kermit]

On 8/23/2019 at 9:09 PM, Dandy Chiggens said:

I dont have time at the moment but I would like to see where Australia sources their immigrants from and how many are considered "highly skilled".  I would wager its not a free for all like it is in the EU right now.  I think I will compare the fastest growing economies over the last 20 years and see if immigration played a role in none, some, or all of them.  A side note, I do know that they depend on China a lot and this "trade war" could have dramatic effects on their economy depending on if Trump gets re-elected. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/20/business/economy/immigration-economic-impact.html

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by kermit

[southslider]

^Actual immigrants in US is much higher than perception, since many of the nationalists forget they're not Native.

All of us alien-descendants can't even begin to prove the legal status of our earlier immigrating generations.  Many of these ancestors, especially the larger groups from Europe, even spoke another language in their homes, businesses, and communities for many years following their immigration.  Plus, they helped successive waves of their relatives immigrate to these foreign-speaking communities.  But after donating so many lives and funding to fight wars back in and rebuild Europe, attitudes towards immigration started shifting dramatically against non-European immigrants. This would especially be the case, once migrants from the American territory of Puerto Rico wanted to move within the US or immigrants from Mexico, many partially descended from Native Americans, wanted to move back to areas previously a part of Mexico or colonial Spain and invaded by the US.

So, yes, perception is far from reality, especially in the "land of opportunity."

Edited August 30, 2019 by southslider

[Dandy Chiggens]

LOL cant argue with that emotional (yet incorrect) theory!

Pre 1965 the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from Europe.....

WW2 ended in....... 1945......

So sometime after 1945 attitudes towards non-European immigration (which was almost non-existent) dramatically shifted according to you.  Also why would 2 wars fought in Europe make people hate non-European immigrants?

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.... you guessed it! 1965......

Your post doesn't quite add up but has an appeal to emotion and plenty of America hating.  I guess that's good enough for some of the dullards on here.

 

 

[Nick2]

People are scared of what they don't understand. Whether it's people of a different color, race, religion, or country of origin, xenophobes will always find a group to hate and demonize. It's changed multiple times throughout America's history.

I personally believe that many people coming here as immigrants for work or a better life are living the American dream. Right now, the vast majority of those seeking the American dream are from Central America and Mexico. Thus they're the target. Just like African Americans were after slavery was abolished, then the Chinese, then the Irish/Italians, then the Japanese, and most recently Hispanics and/or Muslims (from anywhere).

I worked on a farm for a while growing up with some Mexicans and they loved America and everything about it, pickup trucks, Levi jeans, and American flags. Just because the group is being demonized and politicized doesn't mean they're not still living the American dream.

[urbanlover568]

41 minutes ago, Nick2 said:

I worked on a farm for a while growing up with some Mexicans and they loved America and everything about it, pickup trucks, Levi jeans, and American flags. Just because the group is being demonized and politicized doesn't mean they're not still living the American dream.

At my workplace, there is a large Indian presence and they are the nicest people I have met. I forgot my lunch and they all gave me a portion of their lunches so I can join them. Very polite, and don't have that "it's all about me" attitude. Very humble. I love that the United States is a melting pot and hope it continues to be like that. 

[Third Strike]

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article234668747.html

NC legislative maps have been overruled by the courts, and the General Assembly has until 9/18 to redraw them. 

[Skyybutter]

Trump and Co. SUCK

 We are ALL immigrants

Capitalism is sinking.

The federal reserve controls the banks and they create "money" out of thin air. It will all crash.

Start talking to your neighbors and create a bartering and borrowing system that doesnt involve money for services.  As in, does every single home in a subdivision really need their own personal mower? Does every person in a home that can drive need their own vehicle? Learn to car share. You will enjoy life more and even if you dont live to see Capitalism crumble, at least you will actually know the people living around you!

The end.

 

[Nick2]

A healthy mix of capitalism and social programs/regulations on that capitalism is the best system the world has found so far. Really, we're all arguing over the extent that these social programs and regulations should go.

True socialism won't work anytime soon. Human/animal nature is survival of the fittest. Even if the rules and laws say everyone shares the resources equally, someone will take advantage. Either those in power will abuse it or part of the population will have to carry the slack from the lazy/poor performing people. That's why capitalism is so successful (even communist China is thriving in controlled capitalism). 

[JHart]

On 9/6/2019 at 4:52 PM, Nick2 said:

A healthy mix of capitalism and social programs/regulations on that capitalism is the best system the world has found so far. Really, we're all arguing over the extent that these social programs and regulations should go.

True socialism won't work anytime soon. Human/animal nature is survival of the fittest. Even if the rules and laws say everyone shares the resources equally, someone will take advantage. Either those in power will abuse it or part of the population will have to carry the slack from the lazy/poor performing people. That's why capitalism is so successful (even communist China is thriving in controlled capitalism). 

True socialism isn't something that has been explored yet on a country wide scale. It goes against the "evil socialism" propaganda that has been pushed for the last 50 years in the US but there is a political definition of socialism that is perfectly compatible with capitalism as it functions in the world today. The only true tenant of socialism is that the workers own the means of production, it doesn't mean give everyone equal pay or benefits like people have taken it to mean. There has been a huge negative propaganda push to label every progressive policy as socialism and most people conflate socialism with communism and the failed USSR. 

Picture the same companies you work for today except instead of having the majority ownership by investment companies with no interest in the production of valuable goods or services, but having the ownership be entirely by employees. There are still wealth inequalities and you can still have the CEO own 40% compared to a line production worker owning a few shares, but there isn't outside influence of how the companies operate. The only responsibility of publically traded companies today is to make money for their shareholders. Things like moral and ethical responsibilities are secondary and sometimes neglected in order to make a higher profit. Employee ownership allows companies to internally decide what is important to them, instead of having a responsibility to earn money for Berkshire Hathaway, Blackrock, etc. 

You already can support the companies that currently do this and are successful! Go buy a New Belgium beer instead of something owned by InBev as one example. If you go to one of their taprooms, employees don't take tips because they are paid a livable wage with benefits and own shares of the company. 

[Richhamleigh, DC]

On 9/6/2019 at 4:52 PM, Nick2 said:

A healthy mix of capitalism and social programs/regulations on that capitalism is the best system the world has found so far. Really, we're all arguing over the extent that these social programs and regulations should go.

True socialism won't work anytime soon. Human/animal nature is survival of the fittest. Even if the rules and laws say everyone shares the resources equally, someone will take advantage. Either those in power will abuse it or part of the population will have to carry the slack from the lazy/poor performing people. That's why capitalism is so successful (even communist China is thriving in controlled capitalism). 

Be careful not to conflate "socialism" with "communism".  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitalism-socialism-and_b_8523486

"Capitalism" is China hasn't been especially successful for the majority of Chinese.  Business owners, yes.  The only reason the Chinese people working in factories aren't still starving is because of state-funded supports we call "welfare".  China is basically like a giant US corporation:  It barely pays workers a living wage and the public has to pay to support the people employed by the corporation.  

Pure "capitalism" doesn't work either, or rather, the majority of us aren't willing to live in the squalor and deadly physical and natural environments of the "Gilded Age" and early industrial revolutions.  And, most of us don't want to live the "Little House on the Praire" life.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Phillydog

[davidclt]

4 hours ago, Phillydog said:

"Capitalism" is China hasn't been especially successful for the majority of Chinese.  Business owners, yes.  The only reason the Chinese people working in factories aren't still starving is because of state-funded supports we call "welfare".  China is basically like a giant US corporation:  It barely pays workers a living wage and the public has to pay to support the people employed by the corporation.

Pure "capitalism" doesn't work either, or rather, the majority of us aren't willing to live in the squalor and deadly physical and natural environments of the "Gilded Age" and early industrial revolutions.  And, most of us don't want to live the "Little House on the Praire" life.

A few things which stood out to me while talking to our tour guides while we were in China included:

• "Tour Guide" is a recognized profession by the state including training, licensing and a level of rigor in who can have that job.
• Tour Guides make a living if not a great wage. Each of our guides lived on the edge of the city and rode the train to meet us each day. They have to scramble for work, agencies pair them with drivers and they split their tips with the drivers (25% IIRC). Bad guides tend to get weeded out by agencies and will not get work. (seems like Capitalism)
• Each of my guides spoke Chinese, English and at least one if not two additional languages (first spoke French, the other spoke Danish and German!). Drivers tend to not speak any English (sample size of 3 but 100% Chinese only)
• Health care in China sounds quite a lot like health care in America at least in regards to paying for care and getting insurance coverage. Each city has a local insurance scheme (with a higher level of coverage granted to those who were born in that locality) which covers some but not all medical care. Serious health concerns may not be adequately covered leaving the patient/family on the hook to cover the difference (i'm confident had I incurred medical bills in China, the amount would have been reasonable by US standards and probably less opaque even in Chinese. (Explanation of Benefits statements prove that insurance companies benefit from obfuscation and don't care about their customers doing only the minimum of what the law requires)

[Nick2]

11 hours ago, JHart said:

True socialism isn't something that has been explored yet on a country wide scale. It goes against the "evil socialism" propaganda that has been pushed for the last 50 years in the US but there is a political definition of socialism that is perfectly compatible with capitalism as it functions in the world today. The only true tenant of socialism is that the workers own the means of production, it doesn't mean give everyone equal pay or benefits like people have taken it to mean. There has been a huge negative propaganda push to label every progressive policy as socialism and most people conflate socialism with communism and the failed USSR. 

Picture the same companies you work for today except instead of having the majority ownership by investment companies with no interest in the production of valuable goods or services, but having the ownership be entirely by employees. There are still wealth inequalities and you can still have the CEO own 40% compared to a line production worker owning a few shares, but there isn't outside influence of how the companies operate. The only responsibility of publically traded companies today is to make money for their shareholders. Things like moral and ethical responsibilities are secondary and sometimes neglected in order to make a higher profit. Employee ownership allows companies to internally decide what is important to them, instead of having a responsibility to earn money for Berkshire Hathaway, Blackrock, etc. 

You already can support the companies that currently do this and are successful! Go buy a New Belgium beer instead of something owned by InBev as one example. If you go to one of their taprooms, employees don't take tips because they are paid a livable wage with benefits and own shares of the company. 

Communism is economic socialism. It just is also government controlled. But we don't need to get lost in the weeds on the definitions. You've got a good point that it hasn't truly been tried. And it would be impossible to do because you'd have to get literally everyone on board with it.

There's a big difference between socialism and socialist policies and the latter tends to be majorly beneficial for society as long as it's approved through the proper channels in a democracy (or democratic republic, etc.).

I absolutely agree that people should support locally owned businesses if possible. It's just better that way.

10 hours ago, Phillydog said:

Be careful not to conflate "socialism" with "communism".  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitalism-socialism-and_b_8523486

"Capitalism" is China hasn't been especially successful for the majority of Chinese.  Business owners, yes.  The only reason the Chinese people working in factories aren't still starving is because of state-funded supports we call "welfare".  China is basically like a giant US corporation:  It barely pays workers a living wage and the public has to pay to support the people employed by the corporation.  

Pure "capitalism" doesn't work either, or rather, the majority of us aren't willing to live in the squalor and deadly physical and natural environments of the "Gilded Age" and early industrial revolutions.  And, most of us don't want to live the "Little House on the Praire" life.

Actually for a lot of people in China, it's much easier to start a business than in America. Less regulation and red tape. So in some ways, their small-scale businesses are much more free market capitalism than their Western counterparts. And it is true that because China is such a huge country that there are a few hundred million people who are essentially peasants/serfs. But their centralized govt is working hard to change that. Forcing people out of their "little house on the prairie" lifestyle of subsistence farming into apartment blocks in the major cities where they're often given jobs in manufacturing or service. Unfortunately it's ruining the lives of people over the age of 50 but the youngsters do adapt to and adopt the urban lifestyle. 

The beginning of the industrial revolution through WWII is the perfect example of what happens with unbridled capitalism. It sucks for the vast majority of people. Which is why I said a healthy mix of social policies and regulations along with as free a market as possible is the best setup in my opinion.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Good discussion.

[southslider]

The short-term cost-savings of cheap production will ultimately be price-corrected by the long-term consequences of our collective carbon footprint.  Our greedy short-sightedness is long overdue for a hostile takeover by our debtholders.

Edited September 11, 2019 by southslider

[kermit]

 

I have a new habit. Every time the yall'queda pulls unforgivable BS like this I donate.

I am gonna go broke.

[Nick2]

I am LIVID that they pulled this CRAP!!!

They had this veto override vote while many Dems were at freaking 9/11 memorials! Scumbags!

[JRNYP2C]

18 hours ago, Nick2 said:

I am LIVID that they pulled this CRAP!!!

They had this veto override vote while many Dems were at freaking 9/11 memorials! Scumbags!

I totally agree with you.  I am struggling to figure out how Berger and Moore can be voted out in the next election.  These two have so much corruption tied to them, they truly are a detriment to the ENTIRE state.  This antic is truly a new low for the NC GOP.  I try to remain in the middle politically, and will call a spade a spade when needed.  But the continual sneakiness of B & M are unreal.  Just when you think they cannot sink any lower, we can hear them say "Here - hold my beer."

[Nick2]

2 minutes ago, JRNYP2C said:

I totally agree with you.  I am struggling to figure out how Berger and Moore can be voted out in the next election.  These two have so much corruption tied to them, they truly are a detriment to the ENTIRE state.  This antic is truly a new low for the NC GOP.  I try to remain in the middle politically, and will call a spade a spade when needed.  But the continual sneakiness of B & M are unreal.  Just when you think they cannot sink any lower, we can hear them say "Here - hold my beer."

I don't typically follow the platform of either party's candidate because I have views on both sides but stuff like this is going to push me to vote more left for the foreseeable future. Even if it means potentially voting for a candidate I don't like as much as the one for the right. It's the principal of the matter. Just like how the NC GOP literally blatantly cheated in the ninth district.