re: Lefties: What excites you about Democrat policies?

>I bet you’re just itching for another conflict that will kill thousands of poor white enlisted men. it’s absolutely laughable that you claimed to have voted for a conservative ticket in the past. you represent the people who need to be strung up outside the chamber of commerce of every major city until the point resonates.

With all due respect, I'm not itching for any conflict. Economic protectionism and nationalist rhetoric leads to more conflict in my opinion.

There's an argument to be made that protectionism between France and Italy in WW1 precipitated the events of WW1 because Italy was driven into the arms of Germany and Austria-Hungary. I've also looked at other examples of economic protectionism and it doesn't end up well in many cases. I'm also dubious that it leads to economic growth.

I'm a big advocate for the free market and free trade. I'd have thought those used to be big planks of the Republican party.

>it’s absolutely laughable that you claimed to have voted for a conservative ticket in the past.

How so? I'm not a social conservative - couldn't give a damn about social issues. In a past life, I'd have describe myself as 'fiscally conservative' but no Republican government will be fiscally conservative (it's simply a veneer for social conservatism). I've found myself veering to the left on government spending because either way, no government will ever reduce government spending.

Nothing. Being a leftist is the worst. If the alternative was anything other than losing an election by 8 million votes and telling yourself you won bigly over and over again, I’d happily leave these freaks and weirdos to discuss their pronouns amongst themselves.

The coffee is better over here though so it’s not all bad.

quote:

---

economically capitalist, it fits the Democrats more than the Republicans right now.

---

quote:

---

Down voters won't respond?

---

Down voters never actually respond. They're pussies who downvote specifically because they don't have the guts to respond.

Lack of penalty for child trafficking

So you're a democrat and support Mitt Romney, who's a democrat. Don't pretend to be a republican when you're not one. It's fine to be a democrat, but don't act like you were going to vote for anyone other than Biden, the democrat candidate.

You're against Trump because you say he's erratic. That's not what he is at all. He's bombastic but he stays on message. He's not erratic, you just don't like him because, again, you're a democrat. On the other hand you voted for Biden who is clearly not fit for the job and is obviously not running the country. Is that good for the market or America projecting strength or whatever it is you monitor all day? At least Trump knows who he is and where he is at all times.

You want overseas manufacturing and increased immigration. What are all these low skilled uneducated immigrants going to be doing in your service based economy, as they won't be working in factories? Driving Ubers? Cleaning hotel rooms? Why do we need immigrants to do that? We have plenty of able bodied Americans who could and should be doing that, but your party pays them to stay at home, which, consequently, cripples the service economy with a labor shortage. This is caused by your party's own policies.

Also your party is printing money like drunken sailors so whatever meager earnings your immigrants can make cleaning hotel rooms will get eaten up by the cost of everything going up thanks to, yet again, your own party's fiscal policy.

Also, do you favor your party's plan to increase the corporate tax rate to above that of other developed countries to make us less competitive in your beloved global marketplace?

Last question: did you get your economics degree in the Caribbean?

quote:

---

Yet Trump was able to facilitate five peace deals and didn’t get the US involved in any new wars.

---

It takes time for economic protectionism to lead to conflict. It doesn't happen over night. Thank goodness he wasn't re-elected.

It took 20 years from protectionist Europe in the 1890s for WW1 to happen. It's a slow crawl, the first government implements protectionism -> small-scale tensions -> large-scale tensions -> conflict. It's happened so many times throughout economic history.

So it might not be the Trump administration but a successor that continues to enact protectionist policy that potentially causes the conflict.

quote:

---

You're against Trump because you say he's erratic. That's not what he is at all. He's bombastic but he stays on message. He's not erratic, you just don't like him because, again, you're a democrat. On the other hand you voted for Biden who is clearly not fit for the job and is obviously not running the country. Is that good for the market or America projecting strength or whatever it is you monitor all day? At least Trump knows who he is and where he is at all times.

---

You realize that millions of people would say the same thing about Trump, right?

This is your own opinion (just like that was my own opinion) that you're stating as fact.

Mitt Romney isn't a Democrat. The guy was the leader of your own party just a few years ago. You can't just selectively disown leaders you don't agree with. He wouldn't have won a Republican primary if he wasn't a Republican.

quote:

---

You want overseas manufacturing and increased immigration. What are all these low skilled uneducated immigrants going to be doing in your service based economy, as they won't be working in factories? Driving Ubers? Cleaning hotel rooms? Why do we need immigrants to do that? We have plenty of able bodied Americans who could and should be doing that, but your party pays them to stay at home, which, consequently, cripples the service economy with a labor shortage. This is caused by your party's own policies.

---

There aren't a fixed number of jobs in the economy. This is known as the lump of labor fallacy - the idea that more immigration takes jobs, not creates them. More immigration means higher demand for goods, which means more jobs in other areas of the economy.

More low-skilled immigration means cheap labor costs and therefore cheaper goods. This means a higher demand for those goods and therefore increased demand for labor. Obviously, this is a massive over-simplification but the US economy can easily absorb millions of more people without it causing any economic problems.

The US labor force is actually declining - baby boomers are retiring. Low-skilled immigration can easily be absorbed by the US economy. The economy is fairly dynamic and I'm confident the economy needs low-skilled workers at low wages.

People staying at home isn't really a big problem historically. Unemployment rates are usually low and will reach lows after we get through the pandemic.

By allowing low-skilled immigrants to do low-skilled work, natives can easily 'upskill' and go do higher-skilled work.

quote:

---

Also, do you favor your party's platform to increase the corporate tax rate to above that of other developed countries to make us less competitive in your beloved global marketplace?

---

No.

This is the one I disagree with them on. I think the corporation tax is fairly inefficient, increases costs for the consumer, and I'd much prefer them to keep corporate taxes low.

I'd much rather the corporate tax be replaced with a VAT, which works much better at raising revenue. Although that's not feasible so keeping corporate taxes low would be my priority.

quote:

---

Last question: did you get your economics degree in the Caribbean?

---

I did my Economics degree at one of the best economics departments in the world.

Have you got a background in Economics because it definitely sounds like you've not done any Econ? You're tripping over basic things like assuming the demand for labor is constant.

I'm also getting the feeling that you don't know how central banks work.

quote:

---

Also your party is printing money like drunken sailors so whatever meager earnings your immigrants can make cleaning hotel rooms will get eaten up by the cost of everything going up thanks to, yet again, your own party's fiscal policy.

---

Inflation isn't really going to be a problem in the long-run. Central banks have enough ammunition to tackle inflation by raising rates. Historically, central banks have struggled to keep to the inflation target. Central banks have plenty of room to raise rates.

They have a positive interpretation of all the things you interpret as negative (illogical and fricked up as it may be):

Open borders = helping people in need

Being energy dependent = better for our environment

Inflation = higher wages

Fuel prices = good because it incentivized green energy

Federally controlled elections = protecting our democracy

More powerful China = strong allies are good allies and we get cheaper crap

Taxpayer funded abortions for fully developed 3rd trimester babies = women should have a choice about their body

Giant, mega international billionaires funding and controlling all of your policies = we get to consume more cool stuff from those cool companies!

Larger federal government and less powerful local governments = government exists to protect us, they should be more powerful

Pelosi engaging in insider trading without repercussions = everyone in Washington does this, at least she’s on our side!

Biden taking kickbacks from China and Ukraine for pay for play favorable policy = better than mean tweets from Orange Man Pussygrabber!

Loss of freedom (speech, 2nd ammendment, 4th amendment) = the bill of rights is a living document and should evolve as societal norms change

Shrinking middle class and small businesses struggling = we’ll own nothing and we’ll be happy!

Transgender surgeries for children without their parental consent = better mental health for LGBTQ

Jobs being shipped overseas = more time to consume cool stuff and watch Netflix while we get UBI!

Not having school choice for kids that want better schools = education is fundamental to white supremacy and the patriarchy