All a nice thought, it really is. Problem is this thing called human nature. That is, always wanting more. In and of itself not a bad thing until you factor in that there will always be people who expect more than they're willing to work for. Those people won't like your tiny house with all the basics. Their affordable health care will be piss poor compared to what "paying customers" will have, and the free public education with a college degree won't be worth the paper it's written on. What we need to do first is address the get your head back to reality factor. So long as one of your "tiny house people" can drive through my neighborhood and think they should be able to live there simply for the asking, we will have problems. Until these people realize that in most cases one has to demonstrate an ability to earn top income, and a college degree is nothing more than meeting the basic fundamentals of a monetarily successful career, they will continue to be unhappy .
Why do both Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane lie about releasing their tax returns? According to the Washington Post, they were four pinocchio lies. http://louderwithcrowder.com/sanders-flat-out-lies-about-tax-returns/#.Vw_sSPkrKM8 Why are they determined to keep them a secret? Is it because of money his wife made getting a big payoff to leave the school she ran into the ground? The same kind of payoff that Bernie rails against when corporate chieftains do it? Or is it because he follows in the long tradition of democrat presidential aspirants who are eager to give away taxpayer money but are stingier than Scrooge with their own charitable donations.
Sanders Trails Clinton for Different Reasons Than He Claims Bernie Sanders has a problem with the Democratic primary process. On Comedy Central's "Nightly Show," the Democratic presidential candidate complained that southern states vote early in the calendar, suggesting it as a reason he trails Hillary Clinton in the primary. "People say, 'Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,' but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well," Sanders told Larry Wilmore after he was asked Wednesday if the primary system is rigged. "We started off this campaign having to run in the Deep South," he said. "We didn't do all that well—it's a conservative part of our country. But since we've been out of the South, we're doing pretty well." It has become a recurring talking point for Sanders. After winning Utah in late March, Sanders told supporters, "We knew from day one that we were going to have, politically, a hard time in the Deep South. That is a conservative part of our country. But we knew things were going to improve as we headed west." Large victories—first in South Carolina on Feb. 27, then in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia on March 1—have helped propel Clinton to a lead of about 250 pledged delegates, according to an Associated Press count. But does Sanders' argument hold up?... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-clinton-for-different-reasons-than-he-claims
Hello fhl: I like the way you think. It's hard for Bernie supporters to have the ability to do any critical thinking when Bernie him self lacks that ability when it comes to economics. Bernie wants us to be socialist and says "the U.S. should learn from Sweden, Norway and Denmark -- countries with greater equality, a higher standard of living for working families, better schools, free universities, less poverty, a cleaner environment, higher voter turnout, stronger unions, universal health insurance, and a much wider safety net" But then Denmark’s own prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, finally had to correct the Bernie's references to his country as “socialist.” “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” See Bernie vs. Ron Paul: There’s No Comparison March 8, 2016Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. https://mises.org/library/bernie-vs-ron-paul-there’s-no-comparison Capital Hill http://www.investors.com/politics/c...-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/ So Bernie seems a little confused about his definitions of socialism/democratic socialism and a market economy/capitalism. As for the Gini coefficient in Wikipedia's List of countries by distribution of wealth as a measure of inequality. The proof of how useless is that when you sort by the Gini, Zimbabwe is number 2, Denmark is number 3, the US is number 6. If any thing it ruins Bernie's argument that we should be more equal. I would like the OP to reply to your post since he seems to like Bernie.
Hello nitro, Bernie Sanders should be laughed off the political stage for spouting his nonsense democratic socialist economics. But I would like to say up front I agree with his ideas for curbing the abuses of Wall St. A lot of bankers and Wall St crooks should be in jail if it weren't for crony capitalism. Private profits and public losses, with no moral hazard thanks to our crooked system is not how a free market economy is suppose to work. First some definitions. The words democratic socialism is an oxymoron since socialism is anti-democratic by its nature. What is socialism ? Socialism is an elitist economic system system masquerading as a democratic economic system. It is an elitist system because it is a centrally planned system where central planning committees make the economic decisions not the people who make up the economy. It is a system where the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution and also sets wages. The deceptive socialist term “cooperatively owned” is a a euphemism for “government owned”. If everybody “cooperatively owns” your business, trust me you don’t own your business any more. Talk about a demotivator for business. And there goes customer service too. What is capitalism ? Capitalism is a democratic economic system. It is a decentralized economic system where the people who make up the economy make the economic decisions not some elitist central planning committee. It is a free market economic system in which private individuals, rather than the government owns the means of production, distribution, property and businesses. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with a democracy, which is why the united States is a capitalist country. Bernie wants to improve the economy and yet if you look at his socialist ideas for improving the economy, a lot of them sound identical to Obama's ideas. Print more money. See the below for Bernie's trillion dollars plus government spending plans. https://berniesanders.com/issues/ See Bernies jobs solutions here. https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-decent-paying-jobs/ Bernie thinks the government can just pass a law making a so call living wage mandatory and magically every one is better off with no adverse consequences. Maybe they should try the minimum wage idea in those third world nations. Just think every one in those countries could be making $ 100 an hour if their government just passed a simple minimum wage law. See this book which is free if you want to know why the government setting a minimum wage is a bad idea: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson For an example of how muddled the thinking is of Bernie's main followers is, you can go the Democratic Socialists of America web site and see how they answer the below question. Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything? http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism A: Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods. …................................................ While they deny that they want a full blown communist system saying, "Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy." They accuse the corporations of doing the same thing saying "But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them." .................................. Granted there is too much government corruption and influence by businesses, but to say about businesses "We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them." requires an all-powerful central planning government bureaucracy to implement their socialist ownership and control and of course an application of force to those who do not want to give up ownership of their businesses to the government. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. In a free market privately owned businesses make economic decisions based on market forces which by definition is based on "human needs". Human needs in a free market are expressed by the pricing mechanism which in turn affects supply and demand and automatically determines the most effective use of scarce resources to serve the needs of the people. And the entire system is decentralized since the people making up the economy make the economic decisions not some democratic socialist central planning committee bureaucrats. .................................. For businesses they say "workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them". This is just a euphemism for the government will own and control businesses. Later they say "market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.". But they also reject "private profit". See http://www.dsausa.org/constitution So how can there be a market mechanism if there is no private profit. Profits are an expression of demand and ultimately determine supply because the producers are motivated by profits to satisfy the consumers. In a free market producers who keep failing to make a profit too long eventually go out of business. But in their socialist system a state owned enterprise following government strategic guide lines there is no such control mechanism and it will just keep draining the resources of the economy. A business run by bureaucrats will still be controlled by people looking out for their own self interests, namely keeping their jobs. But without profit and loss to guide them ie no "private profit", they are flying blind and ultimately the consumers must suffer from poor quality, a lack of product or an over supply of unwanted product and poor customer service. They deny they that they want a "want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy" but only an "all-powerful government bureaucracy" can eliminate "private profit" in an economy. The biggest problem in an economy is how to distribute resources rationally. With socialism there is no rational method for doing this because there is no free market price mechanism. This question was best answered by Ludwig von Mises in his essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth http://library.mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth From the article: Economic calculation problem http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem "The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good or service should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources... Ludwig von Mises argued in a famous 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned or controlled the means of production, then no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently.[1] This led him to declare "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."[1] Mises developed his critique of socialism more completely in his 1922 book Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis. Mises said "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism: without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation." .................................... The democratic socialist answer to this next question which relates to making a profit, should win a prize for idiocy. It is a classic. Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work? http://www.dsausa.org/won_t_sociali...ause_people_will_lose_their_incentive_to_work A: We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work. .............................................................................. So many misconceptions about economics in their answer. It just goes to show you how true what one famous economist said. "If Socialists Understood Economics, They Wouldn’t Be Socialists" - F.A. Hayek ................................................................. 1. First of all under capitalism, jobs are not distributed by the government. They are offered and accepted by the people who make up the economy not distributed through some long-term goal of government which is what socialism does and they clearly say so in their above answer. In other words under socialism/democratic socialism as I said earlier, "the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution and also sets wages". 2. The next line is really meaningless because under capitalism the below benefits are determined by market forces not government wage price controls which never work. Under socialism they are determined by bureaucrats. "For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment." 3. Lastly they say: "In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work." That statement is pure fantasy and just goes to show you how utterly clueless socialists are when it comes to economics. They don't even know what a market is. Labor in a free market economy has value and the price of labor is determined by market forces. Not some socialist government bureaucrats central planning guidelines. The trading of goods and services in free markets has brought the great prosperity we see in the world today. A world of plenty unimaginable centuries ago. Not because of socialist government central planning, ownership and control. So what is a market. “All markets are created by people who disagree on value but agree on price.” ......................................... A definition of economics paraphrased from the book “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell "If we all lived in the Garden of Eden we wouldn't have an economy because we could have any thing we want, when ever we wanted it. So without scarcity, there is no need to economize and therefore no economics. A classical definition of economics from the British economist Lionel Robbins is “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." ......................................... What is Value Value is subjective. From “Essentials of Economics” by Faustino Ballvé “A thing has value when it is a commodity and is capable of being exchanged in the market. Value always expresses a judgment of the estimation in which something is held, because a thing has a value if and only in so far as it is wanted or desired. For example, a millionaire can buy a diamond for a hundred thousand dollars and find himself dying of thirst in the desert and unable to obtain even a glass of water in exchange for his diamond, which there lacks all value…. 1. Nothing has value in itself. The consumer confers value on it by seeking to acquire it. Hence, the value of a thing is never objective, but always subjective. 2. The monetary price of a thing is not the measure of its value, but only an expression of it.” ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… In important to emphasize that value is subjective and that goods and services have no inherent intrinsic value such as the labor value which Karl Marx claimed. Marx claimed that the value of a commodity depends on the amount of labor required to produce it. This is clearly false since the labor to produce any thing may or may not relate to its ultimate market value. Marx and his followers promoted his intrinsic value for goods theory to justify his scientific socialism idea, namely communism. The key idea being that if goods have an intrinsic value independent of use value then a socialist economic system could run things more efficiently than a free market economic system. But Marx was wrong. Value is subjective and varies by time and place and is best expressed by the people who make up the economy not by central planning committees. From “An Introduction to Economic Reasoning” by David Gordon “An exchange is not an equality, but a double inequality. If I trade one of my apples for one of your oranges, then I value one orange more than one apple, and you value one apple more than one orange. Otherwise, no exchange would take place.” .......................................... Here is a “Basic Economics Principle” which may make my point more clear why just printing more money which Bernie wants to do like those before him, is a bad idea: Money is a claim on goods and services. When money created out of thin air is given to some one, that person has money he or she did not earn. But that person can now purchase goods and services from people that actually labored to produce those goods and services. So how is the economy better off ? It's not. This some thing for nothing idea is brain dead at its core because it is based on false premises. It causes the misallocation of resources and the artificially stimulated part of the economy must eventually collapse as the money flows through the economy and the market seeks price equilibrium to reestablish the relative price levels before the stimulus. But in order to maintain the level of business activity that was reached because of the stimulus and even bigger amount of money must be applied the next time around. The economy becomes more and more distorted and the stimulus must get bigger and bigger each time. This process is unsustainable and ultimately ends in a massive financial crisis. Conclusion While Bernie has many legitimate complaints about the way things are now they are not failures of capitalism but examples of greed and corruption which should be punished and he has written legislation which addresses some of these abuses. Bernie offers as a solution his democratic socialism which requires an elitist non democratic government to tell people what they can and cannot have and how much they can be paid. In short a government with even more power concentrated in fewer hands than we have now. But how can we better off when the fruits of our labor is not ours, but are owned and controlled by "worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises". Political freedom does not exist if the people do not have economic freedom. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With Bernie a socialist government would replace our Constitutional Republic and because of the increased concentration of power, it would be even even easier for people of ill will to abuse the trust of the people. And while the democratic socialists try to deny it, their system as I have shown is in fact a centrally planned economic system "where the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution and also sets wages.". A system which rejects "private profits". See http://www.dsausa.org/constitution Free markets free of government central planning committees, free of government ownership and control are the best kinds of economies for the people. Centrally planned economies whether you call them communism, socialism, democratic socialism or Keynesian are the best kinds of economies for the people at the top. A lot of the world's worse dictators for example Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and North Korea's leaders favored centrally planned economies for that reason.
Conservatives have only been saying this for the last, oh I dunno, decade or so? Glad you finally figured it out. That'd said, another Anonymous empty threat.