You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP. — Agustino
The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. — Agustino
Do you remember when you used to call yourself a socialist? — Sapientia
I won't speak for Sapientia, but I think the essence of socialism is summed up most succinctly in the words of JC. — Baden
"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
Luke 3:11 — Baden
May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc. — Agustino
Six replies? A single reply would've sufficed. So, do you acknowledge any of the political errors I raised as political errors, or are you still in denial? I don't expect Superman. That's just silly. Like others, I was just curious about the length you're willing to go to in order to avoid admitting to error — Sapientia
those going from part time to full time would sky rocket — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I have defined what an “error” is more than once. — raza
Greater wins over smaller losses are obviously a reasonable measure of success. Wins on things of greater importance over losses on things of lesser importance also is a reasonable measure of success.
There is also the common strategy of pushing for something greater than you were prepared to accept in order for there to be a possibility of gaining more than you would have taken. Same strategy is used on the floor of an auction.
Even to a media audience one has to be prepared to be mocked while keeping one’s victories private - a victory such as that achieved as demonstrated by the “auction floor” analogy.
Not seeing these factors is being simplistic. — raza
Giuliani later added: “Second, there was another meeting that has been leaked but hasn’t been in public yet,” he continued. “That was a meeting ― an alleged meeting ― three days before, according to Cohen ... he says there was a meeting with Donald Jr., with Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, with Gates and possibly two others, in which they ― out of the presence of the president ― discussed the meeting with the Russians. ... That meeting never, ever took place. It didn’t happen. It’s a figment of his imagination.”
Confused? You’re not the only one. Giuliani’s clarification prompted a series of inquiries from the Fox News co-hosts.
“Why are you saying that the president wasn’t at the meeting?” Francis asked. “Who asked if he was there? No one asked if he was there.”
“Cohen is alleging the meeting took place,” Giuliani responded. “We’re making it clear the president wasn’t at that meeting. Cohen doesn’t even allege that. To cut it off.”
But Francis continued to press him, “It’s different to say that meeting didn’t happen ... but to say he wasn’t there implies that it happened.”
The next line will presumably be, OK, collusion is a crime, but the President can pardon himself or can't be subpoenaed, and so on etc. — Baden
AndIf a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. […] The value of [a country’s] annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce [by trade policies]. […] The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation. — Adam Smith
When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. — Adam Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.