That Aud Smell Posted July 9, 2018 Report Posted July 9, 2018 Any discussion of the political spectrum is well-informed by the words of the inimitable Utah Phillips. Here's a good one: Sloth and Indolence Party! The Do-Nothings! On 7/6/2018 at 5:57 PM, 5th line wingnutt said: Stepping back from the fray, here are my political leanings... I am a libertarian but not a Libertarian. I am a republican but not a Republican. I am neither a democrat nor a Democrat. I am neither a socialist nor a Socialist. I can assimilate that.
LTS Posted July 9, 2018 Report Posted July 9, 2018 1 hour ago, LGR4GM said: Rochester is shrinking because it was built on Kodak and Kodak went under. Not just Kodak.. Bausch & Lomb, Xerox, and more. Kodak has been under for a long time. The decline from 2010 to now doesn't explain all of it. Kodak was estimated at 120k employees in 1973, 86k in 1998 and 19k in 2011. Sure it's declined, but so have a lot of others. It's done nothing to replace the lost industry. 1 hour ago, LGR4GM said: New York's population has gone up 2.4% between 2010 and the estimate for 2017. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ny/PST045217 Erie County's population has slightly increased since 2010. It isn't all sunshine and sparkles outside of NY. People want to live here. The schools are good, unlike say Michigan where the constant destruction caused by Devos has caught up to the state. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/eriecountynewyork/PST045217 You are right that many states are experiencing a growth because they favor businesses over people. That won't just go on forever. For a State that is so anti-business NY is doing pretty good with the worlds 10th largest economy based on GDP. While NYS has increased by 2.4%, it is behind the national average of 5.5%. So, everywhere is growing, but NYS slower than the average. In addition, most of the growth is downstate with around 4.1% growth (533k people) whereas upstate lost 1% (61,668). The real measure of course is to determine how the economic levels have changed. I have not found a good chart on that. Overall, more people leave NYS for other states. http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/sep/29/edward-cox/new-york-has-most-people-leaving-other-states-coun/
5th line wingnutt Posted July 9, 2018 Report Posted July 9, 2018 On 7/8/2018 at 2:03 PM, Sabel79 said: Speaking of Murray Rothbard... "Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society." Which is downright progressive compared to: "[T]he parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." Both excerpts from his book, "The ethics of Liberty". Both offered in all earnestness. I Dunno about you, but I'll pass. I realize these are nothing more than hypothetical, but they are used to illustrate my visceral objection to the philosophy. It actively disavows personal morality based on an assumption, with no rationale based in fact behind it, that we'll all somehow keep each other in line while having no real reason besides immediate self-interest, to do so. I do not see where either of these disavow personal morality. Why do you think this?
5th line wingnutt Posted July 9, 2018 Report Posted July 9, 2018 7 hours ago, LGR4GM said: I laughed at this a little. The wealth gap between the rich and event he middle class is historically extremely high. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That well has so much money right now there's actual concerns about economic overstimulation. I could raise the tax rate 10% on wealthy people and 15% on corporations and it would barely dent their profit margins. Especially now with the new tax law going into effect. Nothing like adding 1trillion dollars to the national debt. Thanks again Baby Boomers. !st bold: Why is this bad? 2nd bold: Absolutely poorer or relatively poorer? 3rd bold: We just got done lowering these rates and the economy took off after almost a decade of slow growth. I think the rates ought to be lowered even more. 4th bold: cut spending. 5th bold: I do not think much of boomers either and I am one.
Randall Flagg Posted July 9, 2018 Author Report Posted July 9, 2018 2 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said: !st bold: Why is this bad? 2nd bold: Absolutely poorer or relatively poorer? 3rd bold: We just got done lowering these rates and the economy took off after almost a decade of slow growth. I think the rates ought to be lowered even more. 4th bold: cut spending. 5th bold: I do not think much of boomers either and I am one. The most important thing, economics ain't a zero sum game
lothar Posted July 9, 2018 Report Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) Can I just say that this type of discussion is why I love this board and not the cesspool the political forums have turned into on TBD. Even the old political thread had some wonderful conversation that shed light on why those not of my ilk believe how they do. Thanks to all who are continuing the discussion. Mad props. Edited July 9, 2018 by lothar Misspelling 1
Taro T Posted July 10, 2018 Report Posted July 10, 2018 On Saturday, July 07, 2018 at 12:11 PM, North Buffalo said: possibly on GDP, but I’d like a balanced budget first and worry about percentage of GDP droad. We are so over that mark at this point... one stet a time and Id have to look at implications of that number. I suspect defense spending alone is more than double that percentage let alone mandatory programs. VERY confused by the bolded. 2018 budget estimates by the CBO are that the Federal government will spend $4.1T. 1Q18 GDP per the BEAis $19.96T. So spendingis at ~20.5% of GDP. Revenues are expected to be $3.3T (~16.5% of GDP). As stated earlier, my preference would be a balanced budget at ~18% of GDP.
LGR4GM Posted July 10, 2018 Report Posted July 10, 2018 15 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said: !st bold: Why is this bad? 2nd bold: Absolutely poorer or relatively poorer? 3rd bold: We just got done lowering these rates and the economy took off after almost a decade of slow growth. I think the rates ought to be lowered even more. 4th bold: cut spending. 5th bold: I do not think much of boomers either and I am one. No it didn't. Ok, what are you cutting?
LGR4GM Posted July 10, 2018 Report Posted July 10, 2018 18 hours ago, LTS said: Not just Kodak.. Bausch & Lomb, Xerox, and more. Kodak has been under for a long time. The decline from 2010 to now doesn't explain all of it. Kodak was estimated at 120k employees in 1973, 86k in 1998 and 19k in 2011. Sure it's declined, but so have a lot of others. It's done nothing to replace the lost industry. While NYS has increased by 2.4%, it is behind the national average of 5.5%. So, everywhere is growing, but NYS slower than the average. In addition, most of the growth is downstate with around 4.1% growth (533k people) whereas upstate lost 1% (61,668). The real measure of course is to determine how the economic levels have changed. I have not found a good chart on that. Overall, more people leave NYS for other states. http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/sep/29/edward-cox/new-york-has-most-people-leaving-other-states-coun/ Read the article, sounds like half of the people leaving are going to Florida, a state with no income tax. Also sounds like they are retirees. The State's population has still increased since 2010. Plenty of people are staying and if the housing market in Buffalo is anything of note, some places are even experiencing a new influx as jobs are added. Saying "more people leave NYS for other states" is I guess true in a bubble. They are leaving for California (not low taxes) NJ (I bet that has to do with cost of living in NYC) and Florida (retiring). Also from the article you provided "Given that New York state has the nation's fourth-largest population, nearly 20 million, it's not surprising the numbers dwarf smaller states. But by proportion, and when including international migration, several other states have bigger outmigration rates."
LTS Posted July 10, 2018 Report Posted July 10, 2018 The key to understanding where things are going finding an estimation in the change of income levels within the state. The median salary has increased but that would be expected overall. I am looking for any evidence that shows the lower income brackets are increasing while the upper brackets are decreasing. This is what would show the exodus of money from the state. I'm speculating until I can find the evidence. There are areas growing. Buffalo is a notable. Every time I look for jobs I am getting hits in Buffalo, not Rochester. There's certainly small pockets that may grow. The question is how is it growing? Rochester has been building new houses like crazy. Henrietta, Greece, Penfield, Webster have been building like crazy. If the population of Rochester is declining who is buying those houses? I would consider leaving for California if for no other reason that the jobs are there. I worry about how much I pay in taxes after I secure a job. While searching i may choose a location that has lower taxes. Of course, some moving to CA may really not care about the taxes at all. They just want a job.
Recommended Posts