Economy I <3 how (R)s just awkwardly ignore conversations about economics and their track record on it

Jack V Savage said:
What does the phrase "adjusted for inflation" mean to you? I'm not the one who brought up 1955. But gosh, things are way, way better than they were in the early '70s too. Median family income is up a lot since the high point of that period.
Click to expand...
Nice try, Jack. Housing hasn't kept pace with inflation.
 
blackheart said:
Nice try, Jack. Housing hasn't kept pace with inflation.
Click to expand...
Some individual items are up, some are down. The adjustment includes everything. And actually housing costs aren't one that is way up nationally.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Poor people aren't actually that electorally powerful. Minority of the population and they are much less likely to vote or otherwise be involved in politics.

The issue is that the GOP as an institution is almost solely committed to policy that has the effect of upward redistribution. Note how Trump's only major legislation was another big tax cut for the rich and he proposed but barely failed huge cuts in gov't provided healthcare, and going forward, he's proposing more tax cuts for the rich along with a tax increase on the middle class. They get popular support for that agenda by stirring up cultural resentments, and they try to argue that policy that has a first-order effect of upward redistribution leads to higher growth. But the record does not support that claim (to say the least!).
Click to expand...
Yes, we all know that supply side economics doesn’t work, but the democrats also stir up cultural resentments to get votes and their policies are not radically better for the non-rich.
 
Dalarna3 said:
Yes, we all know that supply side economics doesn’t work, but the democrats also stir up cultural resentments to get votes and their policies are not radically better for the non-rich.
Click to expand...
The second and third claims are false.
 
Sinister said:
Well, there's also a current lawsuit against the NAR for artificial inflation of the market.
Click to expand...


The commission 6 percent rule is never been a hard number. Anyone can negotiate the commission. Whats going to be challenging now is buyers aren’t going to have a realtor represent them unless they pay a fee upfront or they are going to have to work with the listing agent which isn’t in their best interests
 
iwannabeadored said:
The commission 6 percent rule is never been a hard number. Anyone can negotiate the commission. Whats going to be challenging now is buyers aren’t going to have a realtor represent them unless they pay a fee upfront or they are going to have to work with the listing agent which isn’t in their best interests
Click to expand...

The lawsuit isnt over it being a hard rule, it's about buyer's agents and seller's agents colluding to make it an industry standard by normalizing it so that its NOT negotiated. And the lawsuit was settled, the NAR admitted that was definitely happening.

Agents are going to go the way of travel agents. There's nothing that's going to stop that. In the meantime paying an agent fee up front is much much more likely to net higher savings on the full cost, which had that commission baked into it.
 
Sinister said:
The lawsuit isnt over it being a hard rule, it's about buyer's agents and seller's agents colluding to make it an industry standard by normalizing it so that its NOT negotiated. And the lawsuit was settled, the NAR admitted that was definitely happening.

Agents are going to go the way of travel agents. There's nothing that's going to stop that. In the meantime paying an agent fee up front is much much more likely to net higher savings on the full cost, which had that commission baked into it.
Click to expand...


Booking travel and selling a home aren’t the same.
 
iwannabeadored said:
Booking travel and selling a home aren’t the same.
Click to expand...

They're going to be done in similar manners once the professional middle-man industries are done away with because they're fraudulent.
 
Dalarna3 said:
If you think that the democrats don’t use cultural resentments to get votes, then you’re completely delusional.
Click to expand...


They don’t. Republicans are far more skilled at marketing and fear based ads than democrats. Democrats suck dick at messaging.


That’s why republicans can run on platforms that hurt the average person yet still win
 
iwannabeadored said:
If democrats did what republicans did in terms of marketing they would win every electio
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean exactly, but there is inherent asymmetry here for a variety of reasons. The fundamental thing is that conservatism (as a movement) was formed by a combination of Southern, let's say, cultural conservatives and anti-New Deal Republicans (who had been a minority faction in the GOP). And the rightist economic policies remain broadly unpopular (with even pluralities of self-identified Republicans opposing most elements), while rightist cultural ideas are broadly popular. Republicans win elections if more of public perceives them as a referendum on culture, and Democrats win if people see them as being about determining a policy path. Democrats could lose as much as they gain by mimicking the vulgar attack style IMO.
 
iwannabeadored said:
They don’t. Republicans are far more skilled at marketing and fear based ads than democrats. Democrats suck dick at messaging.


That’s why republicans can run on platforms that hurt the average person yet still win
Click to expand...

Democrats are losing on purpose(as a collective). They aren't incompetent. Their base are(or were) people they are fundamantally are opposed to and want to stop. They know what the people want or at least know it a lot better than they posture. Their job is to protect the capitalists from the people. So when people don't vote for overt fascist republicans Democrats keep the seat warm until the Republicans get back which they will inevitably will.
 
Dalarna3 said:
Hmm, I wonder why the democrats have been running places like Baltimore for 50+ years only to have them turn into complete shitholes.
Click to expand...
This isn't really a coherent point, and it doesn't have anything to do with the preceding discussion.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Blue cities turning into shitholes. Did you read the post I replied to?
Click to expand...
Well, I said "exactly." "Shithole" is just a kind of empty value judgment. By the standards of, say, Manhattan, 99% of the country is a "shithole" right? What are the specific causes and effects that you're talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,297
Messages
55,481,598
Members
174,788
Latest member
Blueguy

Share this page

Back
Top