Author Topic: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If  (Read 94927 times)

DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
  • ♪ 🎶 ♫ ♪ 🎶 ♫
Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

Once you understand that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.

You are a Buddha (that's a complement & not a reference to excessive girth or male pattern baldness...)

You're dog looks cool too!
AFL // BRK.B // CLB // EQC // EW // GPC // MO // NVO // PSX // TPL // VDE // VLGEA // WFC

Investable cash 14.7% + 26 months of survival ca$h

---

Reggae rarely modulates because it doesn't need to. Jackie Mittoo was a Hammond B3 god!


Rainforesthiker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.
Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.

Perhaps you are referring to my comment.  Some libertarians believe in a small role for the state wrt rule of law, property rights and defense.  Some are more of the anarcho-capitalist mold which believe in a different form of organization than the state based more on private mutual cooperation.  For example, despite my comments above, I think it very possible that a private law enforcement model, paid in the form of insurance premiums, would be better than our current tax / law enforcement from the state.  Also, given the propensity of governments to assume ever greater amounts of power and ultimately start wars or commit genocide, and given my belief in the power and importance of individual liberty, I think in general the less state the better. 

Since this is supposed to be an investing forum, this whole thread seems to be a large distraction.  I will say no more on this subject here.  Good luck.
The key question:  What is the "inefficient rationale" - the reason the market is mispricing the stock.  Why doesn't the powerful force of the wisdom of the crowd manifest here to produce the correct price?

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3623
"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

"Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians."

That is a very good point that I forgot to mention. Actually it applies also to dentists and pharmacists.

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

Cardboard

RichardGibbons

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

For the same reason you pay for people who don't exercise enough, eat too much, drive poorly, don't go for periodic preventative check-ups, smoke, drink alcohol or coke, ski, box, canoe, eat bacon, play football, hike, collect garbage, donate blood, work as a nurse, doctor, or other hospital worker, work in mines and other heavy industry....

In both the US and Canada, because it is essentially an insurance model, everyone pays for the negative decisions of everyone.  The fact that some people like to have sex with different people get checked for STDs doesn't seem that different than me eating bacon and needing to get cholesterol checked occasionally.

Also the bigger issue to me is what that "abuse" costs, and it's a bit silly for us to argue about it without a good understanding of the costs.  My SWAG would that there's about 10 million people between the ages of 20 and 40.  Say 5% of those swap partners a lot, and of those, 10% go to the doctor quarterly to get tested at a cost of $100.  Then the total cost would be $20M, which doesn't seem like that bad a deal.  Isn't a heart attack from eating too much bacon running in the tens of thousands?  You don't need many of those to exceed $20M.  (I imagine AIDS is pretty expensive to treat too, though.)

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

They also pay for round-the-clock security for the Prime Minister, because we think it's a good idea to keep him not dead and functioning effectively. If you're going to suggest "not fair" examples, it would be much more persuasive if it weren't the leader of the entire country.  (Like say, his wife and kids, who would also probably jump the queue.  That would be an awesome political controversy.  :)

That said, my goal would never be total fairness. Naively striving for absolute fairness is pointless--we need to be practical, not live in fairy tales. My goal is to reduce the effects of luck in life, so the people who work the hardest have the best possible chance to get ahead.

RichardGibbons

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

The interesting thing about IP is that it's a total fiction, a very weak artificial monopoly, and China's really shown that.  I think there's substantial value in protecting IP, but I also think if US went too hard placing a too high a value on  IP during trade negotiations, they'd find everyone abandoning that fiction pretty quickly, resulting in trade wars that would be bad for everyone.

Re: "we no longer need allies to fight the communists": Most of the west is allies with US, and therefore they don't need a huge military.  If they are no longer allies, I wouldn't expect them to continue to have a small military, and it would be foolish to expect USA to get better treatment at that point.  It isn't that long since Germany, Italy, and Japan took over much of the world.

Encouraging everyone to massively increase their military to sizes where they become a real threat to the USA, and encouraging them to ally instead with Russia and China seems like a really stupid strategy.


Packer16

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3203
  • Go Riders Go! Go Pack Go!
It is only fiction to those who free ride on others efforts & are catching up technologically but not truly innovating.  The fiction you speak of is why the US has and will be dominate going forward in innovation.  It is no fiction that the most innovative firms are in the US.  If you think China is such a great place why is money flooding out of China to real estate and other assets to the US because China is such an innovative place.  The US has such an environment because of the incentives in the US system.  This would become obvious if we charged foreigners to access our markets.  I am not saying innovation does not occur in other places just that US has an incentive system to maximize it & Obama et al was changing the system to be like the rest of the world were the incentives do not exist.

Packer

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5520
Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.



It's a bit disingenuous to first chastise members for not wanting to debate underlying philosophical issues, then stomp out the conversation and call it a "waste of time" when someone steps up to the plate.

I personally agree with Richard on his shades of grey comment regarding your philosophy.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

onyx1

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
Latest New Yorker issue:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

"And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth donít matter."


Looks like the MSM are just catching on to the reality that facts don't matter in politics.

Packer16

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3203
  • Go Riders Go! Go Pack Go!
I was reading an editorial by Luigi Zengalos and he has stated that in Italy that the only effective way to defeat a guy like Trump (Burlesconi) was with facts.  Attacking him on an emotional level only made him stronger.

Packer

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

Packer

My interpretation is a bit different. Here I am thinking of Canada. We are a small market. That means that generally there tends to be few competitors and a lot of oligopolies. So the natural impulse is to regulate to prevent oligopoly abuse. For instance there is a lot of weird, inconsistent policies our federal government has pursued to ensure that there are 4 mobile carriers. And our companies tend to be risk averse...why take chances when you are making oligopoly profits.

I think the size of America is incredibly important. America is the largest free trade zone in the world. And I think that not only explains your economic success but in addition many of your economic policies. You don't need government to prevent oligopoly abuse because your competitive market does it for you. You don't need the government to encourage innovation, because your market is so incredibly competitive that your companies will be left in the dust if they don't. There are few countries that have these advantages.