Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Once we’ve dismissed with trickle-down nonsense, the way forward becomes clear. I’ll save a detailed policy agenda for another forum, but there’s no getting around the trillion-dollar elephant in the room: the 5 percent of GDP that used to go to wages but now goes to executive pay and record corporate profits. This isn’t money we’re shipping overseas or feeding to robots or burying in holes. The most obvious way to address our crisis of growing inequality is to reverse the policies that undermined the older, more equitable norms. This means raising the minimum wage and the overtime threshold to their inflation-adjusted peaks, and indexing them to the appropriate economic metric. This means restricting the stock buybacks that have propped up executive pay through share price manipulation. This means rethinking our benefits systems and social safety nets to meet the needs of our modern economy. And this means substantially raising taxes on plutocrats like us who continue to capture the bulk of our nation’s economic gains..................

Many smug, wealthy, highly educated liberals like myself (and let’s be honest, like many of you who have been blowing up my phone since the election) have taken to soothing ourselves with the notion that Trump was elected by stupid, racist people. And to some degree, this may be true. But like it or not, in America, even stupid racists have an equal claim to the prosperity, dignity, status and happiness that we urban economic elites hold so dear. Also, they vote. So while we should never pander to their racism, we must face the fact that if our greed prevents them from having their fair shot at happiness, they will most certainly take it from us by force. Parenthetically, I want to make clear that I am not so naïve as to believe that prosperity eliminates racism. It does not. But, it is one hell of a distraction. People who are thriving and hopeful may still be filled with hate, but they don’t have nearly as much reason to act on it.

It is true that the American experiment has proven remarkably resilient, even through periods of wrenching political realignment. During the mid-1850s, one of our two major parties, the Whigs—representing issues including high tariffs and anti-Catholic nativism—collapsed and disappeared. Examine the political climate of that time and you’ll find some startling similarities with our own. Much of the North’s popular resistance to the inequality issue of that age, the expansion of slavery, had little to do with empathy for slaves; rather, the “free labor” movement was grounded in a deep sense of economic anxiety amongst the working poor who saw both slavery and immigration as a threat to their own jobs and wages. Sound familiar? Eventually we got ourselves back on track—but only after a long and bloody Civil War.

I don’t claim to have the all the answers on how to fix our economy, but I do guarantee that if we don’t raise wages and reverse inequality, the social cohesion that makes for a stable democracy and thriving economy is impossible. And that’s not an America where we plutocrats want to live. There are plenty of countries with yawning inequality where people like us and our children can’t go out in public without fear of being kidnapped for ransom. And then there’s Russia, where no amount of wealth can save you from the prisons or assassins of an all-powerful President Putin. So, if you are wealthy, and you rightly fear for the future of your country (not to mention your own personal safety), then I ask you to consider the possibility that the best way to defend your own interests is to improve the economic interests of others. Just do that. I think you’ll be surprised by how fast things get better. But you better act quick.


The pitchforks are coming, my friends, and whether they come in the angry hands of a desperate mob or the tiny hands of an angry dictator, they’re coming for us. You may not want to believe that your great fortune has come, at least in part, at the expense of others, but the American people believe it. And they’re righteously pissed. So, you have a choice: You can either act now to help close the vast economic divide that is tearing our republic apart—or you can follow Trump’s rhetorical lead and start building huge f*cking walls. The pitchforks are at the gate, and time is running short.

CID1990 wrote:

I'm burning a stump and drinking beer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:I mentioned you two because 1) UNI88 does a very good job of reasonably arguing these things and Chizzy because IIRC he posted a Nick Hanauer video on the topic a few years back.

Hanauer is a self admitted "zillionaire" who has helped found and back 30 start ups and was the first non-family investor in Amazon. He has a new podcast called "Pitchfork Economics" and the first two episodes are intriguing (although probably upsetting to those who subscribe to outdated and fairy tale economic theories). I'm guessing he's made the establishment and more than a few of his fellow .01%'s nervous over the past few years.

I would enjoy watching you conservatives pick him apart so have at it........ If you like economics, and don't mind being challenged in your thinking, I highly recommend checking out the podcast.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:I mentioned you two because 1) UNI88 does a very good job of reasonably arguing these things and Chizzy because IIRC he posted a Nick Hanauer video on the topic a few years back.

Hanauer is a self admitted "zillionaire" who has helped found and back 30 start ups and was the first non-family investor in Amazon. He has a new podcast called "Pitchfork Economics" and the first two episodes are intriguing (although probably upsetting to those who subscribe to outdated and fairy tale economic theories). I'm guessing he's made the establishment and more than a few of his fellow .01%'s nervous over the past few years.

I would enjoy watching you conservatives pick him apart so have at it........ If you like economics, and don't mind being challenged in your thinking, I highly recommend checking out the podcast.

It's too late...
There are endless graphs and charts that have been showing all of this in plain sight for 30 years

and frankly there aren't enough Costco ownership groups to light the way
Instead they are seen as a Boardroom full of dip-sh!t liberals who got lucky
and stumbled onto some goofy hippie lightening in a bottle
best to be ignored than studied

Again, nice but too late...
Boardrooms that believe that it's essential to **** over your employee base to grow stock value
Outnumber any other type of boardroom 100-to-1



add to that...
You have to have a boardroom willing to bonus itself less
Show me a list of boardrooms willing to do that..?
I'll be right here rolling my eyes

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:I mentioned you two because 1) UNI88 does a very good job of reasonably arguing these things and Chizzy because IIRC he posted a Nick Hanauer video on the topic a few years back.

Hanauer is a self admitted "zillionaire" who has helped found and back 30 start ups and was the first non-family investor in Amazon. He has a new podcast called "Pitchfork Economics" and the first two episodes are intriguing (although probably upsetting to those who subscribe to outdated and fairy tale economic theories). I'm guessing he's made the establishment and more than a few of his fellow .01%'s nervous over the past few years.

I would enjoy watching you conservatives pick him apart so have at it........ If you like economics, and don't mind being challenged in your thinking, I highly recommend checking out the podcast.

It's too late...
There are endless graphs and charts that have been showing all of this in plain sight for 30 years

and frankly there aren't enough Costco ownership groups to light the way
Instead they are seen as a Boardroom full of dip-sh!t liberals who got lucky
and stumbled onto some goofy hippie lightening in a bottle
best to be ignored than studied


Boardrooms that believe that it's essential to fuck over your employee base to grow stock value
Outnumber any other type of boardroom 100-to-1

add to that...
You have to have a boardroom willing to bonus itself less
Show me a list of boardrooms willing to do that..?
I'll be right here rolling my eyes

kalm wrote:I mentioned you two because 1) UNI88 does a very good job of reasonably arguing these things and Chizzy because IIRC he posted a Nick Hanauer video on the topic a few years back.

Hanauer is a self admitted "zillionaire" who has helped found and back 30 start ups and was the first non-family investor in Amazon. He has a new podcast called "Pitchfork Economics" and the first two episodes are intriguing (although probably upsetting to those who subscribe to outdated and fairy tale economic theories). I'm guessing he's made the establishment and more than a few of his fellow .01%'s nervous over the past few years.

I would enjoy watching you conservatives pick him apart so have at it........ If you like economics, and don't mind being challenged in your thinking, I highly recommend checking out the podcast.

Once we’ve dismissed with trickle-down nonsense, the way forward becomes clear. I’ll save a detailed policy agenda for another forum, but there’s no getting around the trillion-dollar elephant in the room: the 5 percent of GDP that used to go to wages but now goes to executive pay and record corporate profits. This isn’t money we’re shipping overseas or feeding to robots or burying in holes. The most obvious way to address our crisis of growing inequality is to reverse the policies that undermined the older, more equitable norms. This means raising the minimum wage and the overtime threshold to their inflation-adjusted peaks, and indexing them to the appropriate economic metric. This means restricting the stock buybacks that have propped up executive pay through share price manipulation. This means rethinking our benefits systems and social safety nets to meet the needs of our modern economy. And this means substantially raising taxes on plutocrats like us who continue to capture the bulk of our nation’s economic gains..................

Many smug, wealthy, highly educated liberals like myself (and let’s be honest, like many of you who have been blowing up my phone since the election) have taken to soothing ourselves with the notion that Trump was elected by stupid, racist people. And to some degree, this may be true. But like it or not, in America, even stupid racists have an equal claim to the prosperity, dignity, status and happiness that we urban economic elites hold so dear. Also, they vote. So while we should never pander to their racism, we must face the fact that if our greed prevents them from having their fair shot at happiness, they will most certainly take it from us by force. Parenthetically, I want to make clear that I am not so naïve as to believe that prosperity eliminates racism. It does not. But, it is one hell of a distraction. People who are thriving and hopeful may still be filled with hate, but they don’t have nearly as much reason to act on it.

It is true that the American experiment has proven remarkably resilient, even through periods of wrenching political realignment. During the mid-1850s, one of our two major parties, the Whigs—representing issues including high tariffs and anti-Catholic nativism—collapsed and disappeared. Examine the political climate of that time and you’ll find some startling similarities with our own. Much of the North’s popular resistance to the inequality issue of that age, the expansion of slavery, had little to do with empathy for slaves; rather, the “free labor” movement was grounded in a deep sense of economic anxiety amongst the working poor who saw both slavery and immigration as a threat to their own jobs and wages. Sound familiar? Eventually we got ourselves back on track—but only after a long and bloody Civil War.

I don’t claim to have the all the answers on how to fix our economy, but I do guarantee that if we don’t raise wages and reverse inequality, the social cohesion that makes for a stable democracy and thriving economy is impossible. And that’s not an America where we plutocrats want to live. There are plenty of countries with yawning inequality where people like us and our children can’t go out in public without fear of being kidnapped for ransom. And then there’s Russia, where no amount of wealth can save you from the prisons or assassins of an all-powerful President Putin. So, if you are wealthy, and you rightly fear for the future of your country (not to mention your own personal safety), then I ask you to consider the possibility that the best way to defend your own interests is to improve the economic interests of others. Just do that. I think you’ll be surprised by how fast things get better. But you better act quick.

The pitchforks are coming, my friends, and whether they come in the angry hands of a desperate mob or the tiny hands of an angry dictator, they’re coming for us. You may not want to believe that your great fortune has come, at least in part, at the expense of others, but the American people believe it. And they’re righteously pissed. So, you have a choice: You can either act now to help close the vast economic divide that is tearing our republic apart—or you can follow Trump’s rhetorical lead and start building huge f*cking walls. The pitchforks are at the gate, and time is running short.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... mfm-4sShP4

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:I mentioned you two because 1) UNI88 does a very good job of reasonably arguing these things and Chizzy because IIRC he posted a Nick Hanauer video on the topic a few years back.

Hanauer is a self admitted "zillionaire" who has helped found and back 30 start ups and was the first non-family investor in Amazon. He has a new podcast called "Pitchfork Economics" and the first two episodes are intriguing (although probably upsetting to those who subscribe to outdated and fairy tale economic theories). I'm guessing he's made the establishment and more than a few of his fellow .01%'s nervous over the past few years.

I would enjoy watching you conservatives pick him apart so have at it........ If you like economics, and don't mind being challenged in your thinking, I highly recommend checking out the podcast.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... mfm-4sShP4

I need to read the whole piece but he I agree with just about everything he says, especially the 5% of GDP that used to go to wages and now goes to exec pay and corporate profits. I've argued that the focus on short-term balance sheet profits and the incestuous nature of corporate board membership is a serious problem. He makes a good argument for increasing the minimum wage and he might be right.

Was the election of Trump a good thing? If Hillary would have won I'm pretty sure that we would have kept going down the same road and getting the same results. Trump election was the result of many people being disenchanted with the status quo but it has also woken more people up to what has been going on for a long time and maybe we can force some real change.

CID, I burned out a tree stump in my backyard and then turned the spot into a nice fire pit.

kalm wrote:

But you raise another very interesting point with Costco. Why?

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting article, which I read twice, but Hanauer doesn’t convincingly explain how he gets his math to work. He assumes that you can magically reallocate 5% of GDP from corporate profits and executive pay to worker salaries, and everything will be peachy. Two problems to start: he doesn’t break down the 5%, and he assumes that corporate profits will remain constant over time. Hanauer seems to recognize flaws in his argument through buried details: there may be “other factors” in Seattle’s job success than raising minimum wages, you don’t want to try this massive rebalancing act during or on the cusp of a recession, etc. And he takes a lot of time trying to explain away the UW study.

To the extent Hanauer is urging his fellow super-capitalists to become more politically active in support of a higher minimum wage, that’s fine. If you want to try to focus corporate boards on different goals like worker welfare instead of short-term profits, wage a proxy fight to replace the board with like-minded individuals, or become a B-corp (see my earlier posts on this corporate law concept). Hanauer is essentially reformulating his 2014 piece and putting Trump in the middle of it. The economics are still sloppy, and the rhetoric is still overblown.

Chizzang wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting article, which I read twice, but Hanauer doesn’t convincingly explain how he gets his math to work. He assumes that you can magically reallocate 5% of GDP from corporate profits and executive pay to worker salaries, and everything will be peachy. Two problems to start: he doesn’t break down the 5%, and he assumes that corporate profits will remain constant over time. Hanauer seems to recognize flaws in his argument through buried details: there may be “other factors” in Seattle’s job success than raising minimum wages, you don’t want to try this massive rebalancing act during or on the cusp of a recession, etc. And he takes a lot of time trying to explain away the UW study.

To the extent Hanauer is urging his fellow super-capitalists to become more politically active in support of a higher minimum wage, that’s fine. If you want to try to focus corporate boards on different goals like worker welfare instead of short-term profits, wage a proxy fight to replace the board with like-minded individuals, or become a B-corp (see my earlier posts on this corporate law concept). Hanauer is essentially reformulating his 2014 piece and putting Trump in the middle of it. The economics are still sloppy, and the rhetoric is still overblown.

He certainly gets one thing correct...
Creative change is not coming from the political right

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

He certainly gets one thing correct...
Creative change is not coming from the political right

True

But creativity from the left is sometimes worse than ossified conservatism

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
True

But creativity from the left is sometimes worse than ossified conservatism

No doubt about it
But where is this conservatism you speak of..?

Tax breaks that have been proven already to increase the deficit
including just flat out - out spending the Liberal previous administration

When do we actually "get" a Conservative that spends less than his Liberal predecessor ?
Can you show me an actual example of a conservative administration that decreased spending



I ask and i ask...
and nobody can ever show me a conservative in practice (only in principal) never in practice

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
True

But creativity from the left is sometimes worse than ossified conservatism

No doubt about it
But where is this conservatism you speak of..?

Tax breaks that have been proven already to increase the deficit
including just flat out - out spending the Liberal previous administration

When do we actually "get" a Conservative that spends less than his Liberal predecessor ?
Can you show me an actual example of a conservative administration that decreased spending



I ask and i ask...
and nobody can ever show me a conservative in practice (only in principal) never in practice

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
No doubt about it
But where is this conservatism you speak of..?

Tax breaks that have been proven already to increase the deficit
including just flat out - out spending the Liberal previous administration

When do we actually "get" a Conservative that spends less than his Liberal predecessor ?
Can you show me an actual example of a conservative administration that decreased spending



I ask and i ask...
and nobody can ever show me a conservative in practice (only in principal) never in practice

Well if they don’t, then they aren’t really conservative, are they?

And any true conservative knows that tax cuts without spending cuts don’t do anything (beneficial)

So if your question is specific, the answer is “only maybe 3-4 people currently in Congress”

I’d run for Congress if a) I thought I could win, b) didn’t have anything better to do and c) thought it would matter

Conservatism is all fine and good for politicians right up to the point where your opponents hit you with “starving children” and “push grandma off the cliff” and then they cave on spending cuts. Every time

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting article, which I read twice, but Hanauer doesn’t convincingly explain how he gets his math to work. He assumes that you can magically reallocate 5% of GDP from corporate profits and executive pay to worker salaries, and everything will be peachy. Two problems to start: he doesn’t break down the 5%, and he assumes that corporate profits will remain constant over time. Hanauer seems to recognize flaws in his argument through buried details: there may be “other factors” in Seattle’s job success than raising minimum wages, you don’t want to try this massive rebalancing act during or on the cusp of a recession, etc. And he takes a lot of time trying to explain away the UW study.

To the extent Hanauer is urging his fellow super-capitalists to become more politically active in support of a higher minimum wage, that’s fine. If you want to try to focus corporate boards on different goals like worker welfare instead of short-term profits, wage a proxy fight to replace the board with like-minded individuals, or become a B-corp (see my earlier posts on this corporate law concept). Hanauer is essentially reformulating his 2014 piece and putting Trump in the middle of it. The economics are still sloppy, and the rhetoric is still overblown.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting article, which I read twice, but Hanauer doesn’t convincingly explain how he gets his math to work. He assumes that you can magically reallocate 5% of GDP from corporate profits and executive pay to worker salaries, and everything will be peachy. Two problems to start: he doesn’t break down the 5%, and he assumes that corporate profits will remain constant over time. Hanauer seems to recognize flaws in his argument through buried details: there may be “other factors” in Seattle’s job success than raising minimum wages, you don’t want to try this massive rebalancing act during or on the cusp of a recession, etc. And he takes a lot of time trying to explain away the UW study.

To the extent Hanauer is urging his fellow super-capitalists to become more politically active in support of a higher minimum wage, that’s fine. If you want to try to focus corporate boards on different goals like worker welfare instead of short-term profits, wage a proxy fight to replace the board with like-minded individuals, or become a B-corp (see my earlier posts on this corporate law concept). Hanauer is essentially reformulating his 2014 piece and putting Trump in the middle of it. The economics are still sloppy, and the rhetoric is still overblown.

In the 2nd podcast, they break down classical economics. Nice observational and math related concepts that assume humans will act rationally but otherwise fairly useless. When someone proclaims "It's economics 101" run like hell from them. Interesting stuff and he interviews an Oxford professor that has a team of 100 currently studying and debunking the mythology of things like trickle down.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
In the 2nd podcast, they break down classical economics. Nice observational and math related concepts that assume humans will act rationally but otherwise fairly useless. When someone proclaims "It's economics 101" run like hell from them. Interesting stuff and he interviews an Oxford professor that has a team of 100 currently studying and debunking the mythology of things like trickle down.

That's ^ great...
But did they spend any time breaking down the "Stanford Prison experiment"..?
Or any other Human Cruelty experiments that have proven time and time again
That humans in a position of ultimate authority and control train themselves NOT to GIVE A FUCK

The "data points are in"
Until heads are actually getting chopped off and CFO's are dangling from telephone poles
NOTHING will change in the American Board Room

and there is zero indication that anybody is listening to guys like Hanauer
See Ivy reply for addition confirmation

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That's ^ great...
But did they spend any time breaking down the "Stanford Prison experiment"..?
Or any other Human Cruelty experiments that have proven time and time again
That humans in a position of ultimate authority and control train themselves NOT to GIVE A FUCK

The "data points are in"
Until heads are actually getting chopped off and CFO's are dangling from telephone poles
NOTHING will change in the American Board Room

and there is zero indication that anybody is listening to guys like Hanauer
See Ivy reply for addition confirmation

Agree with all of this but he’s one guy who DOES have access and he leaves the impression he’s ruffled some feathers. That’s not a bad thing, Debbie Downer.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agree with all of this but he’s one guy who DOES have access and he leaves the impression he’s ruffled some feathers. That’s not a bad thing, Debbie Downer.

Look you know I'm right there with you on this...
I'm the guy around here who tries to explain to the Anti-Welfare crowd
"Welfare isn't for poor people, it's for rich people... it keeps them from getting hanged in the streets"

Eliminating federal social safety nets is a really really bad idea
and if you don't "get it" there's nothing else to try and explain
also:
Lifting up the middle class and kindness payback strategies don't impress Wall Street

Hanauer is talking to people who are living the control portion of the Stanford Prison Experiment in real time
of course they don't see what he's talking about