RIP Rush Limbaugh

[The Monarch]

Again, no evidence presented to justify your statement. "I am an expert, so I'm right and you are wrong". lol

Plenty of rich people think they can buy elections and fail. Bloomberg was one of the latest. As for Trump's winning the election "becuz capital", Clinton spent more. Trump's racist and misogynist rhetoric resonated with racist right wing white nationalist authoritarians. I'm not speaking for the world but for the US. Big donations buy access to political leaders when in office and quite often large donors give to both sides. But there is little evidence that money is all that matters.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that Russia had an effect on the 2016 election. That is not a cynical statement, it is backed up by plenty of documentation. We may begin with the Mueller report if you like.

Here’s something from WaPo prior to 2016 that has some broad details on donors and is based on FEC data:

Big givers drive super PAC fundraising
By the end of September, super PACs had raised $1.5 billion and had spent $791.5 million on ads and other forms of voter outreach. Including expenditures through Nov. 1, super PACs had spent a total of $968 million.

The top 50 donors have together supplied $571.1 million—37 percent of the money raised to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

Never said Russian meddling had no influence, just that donations matter more. The money feeds an enormous operation and it all gets spent - people compete hard to get it, from global media giants, consulting firms to local printing firms. It’s a very big deal with a lot of people making a living off our elections. Citizens United has made the business of electing people HUGE.

 

[Fogdog]

Here’s something from WaPo prior to 2016 that has some broad details on donors and is based on FEC data:

Big givers drive super PAC fundraising
By the end of September, super PACs had raised $1.5 billion and had spent $791.5 million on ads and other forms of voter outreach. Including expenditures through Nov. 1, super PACs had spent a total of $968 million.

The top 50 donors have together supplied $571.1 million—37 percent of the money raised to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

Never said Russian meddling had no influence, just that donations matter more. The money feeds an enormous operation and it all gets spent - people compete hard to get it, from global media giants, consulting firms to local printing firms. It’s a very big deal with a lot of people making a living off our elections. Citizens United has made the business of electing people HUGE.

So, big money went to PACs. Money on both sides. Last time Trump won, this time Biden did.

How does that prove your point?

 

[The Monarch]

So, just waving ones hand and saying "its all money" is kind of stupid and as with all false theories falls apart upon closer examination.

Just to clarify, are you saying demographic shifts impact elections? Or that AI and automation are bad?

I agree on both, but just a reminder it is Capital that brought you the former.

 

[hanimmal]

Why? The Fed controls s/t interest rates, they have kept them near zero for much of the last 20 years. Saving is not a choice for a lot of people. The textbooks refer to it as a preference, but I think THAT’S naive (or convenient). Every basis point of interest lost, along with having to eat all the inflation since then, has financially destroyed millions of households over time. It’s just math and compounded interest

You are living in some kind of world that the savings is not gaining interest?

 

[Fogdog]

Just to clarify, are you saying demographic shifts impact elections? Or that AI and automation are bad?

I agree on both, but just a reminder it is Capital that brought you the former.

"Capital brought you the former" What are you talking about? Citations to help explain please.

Regarding the effect of demographic shift, it explains Trump's win and the division in this country very well. As said in the article that I referenced,

the declining majority that tends to act aggressively, often imagining it must preempt a rising minority. Simply put, declining majorities don’t want to yield their status or hegemony.

So, what has been going on over the past 50 years? Shift away from white power and toward multiracial democracy. And, the "majority act(ing) aggressively" was on full display on Jan 6. Mind you, I'm not discounting the effect of the shift toward extreme in wealth in a very few as a factor, I'm just saying that there is little evidence that money buys elections and proposing alternative theories that fit the facts better than what you claim.

Automation is a big driving force in today's labor markets. Fewer good jobs for the less well educated means a large group of economically anxious people. Factory jobs aren't a big source of employment in the US and probably never will be again. This is an economic factor but not the same as "big capital" is why Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so forth.

The Biden administration will succeed with the electorate based upon how well it does with handling the end game of this epidemic and the economic well being of the electorate come election day. A lot of money will be spent on both sides and I await good evidence from you that the money will be more important than how well the Biden administration performs on those issues.

 

[The Monarch]

You are living in some kind of world that the savings is not gaining interest?

When you earn 0.1% in a CD or savings account, and the CPI is running at 2-3%, you are getting killed. How many groceries does 0.1% even buy?

 

[1212ham]

I think russia and facebook/twitter had a lot to do with electing trump

 

[The Monarch]

"Capital brought you the former" What are you talking about? Citations to help explain please.

Regarding the effect of demographic shift, it explains Trump's win and the division in this country very well. As said in the article that I referenced,

the declining majority that tends to act aggressively, often imagining it must preempt a rising minority. Simply put, declining majorities don’t want to yield their status or hegemony.

So, what has been going on over the past 50 years? Shift away from white power and toward multiracial democracy. And, the "majority act(ing) aggressively" was on full display on Jan 6. Mind you, I'm not discounting the effect of the shift toward extreme in wealth in a very few as a factor, I'm just saying that there is little evidence that money buys elections and proposing alternative theories that fit the facts better than what you claim.

Automation is a big driving force in today's labor markets. Fewer good jobs for the less well educated means a large group of economically anxious people. Factory jobs aren't a big source of employment in the US and probably never will be again. This is an economic factor but not the same as "big capital" is why Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so forth.

The Biden administration will succeed with the electorate based upon how well it does with handling the end game of this epidemic and the economic well being of the electorate come election day. A lot of money will be spent on both sides and I await good evidence from you that the money will be more important than how well the Biden administration performs on those issues.

FFS, who do you think funded it?

 

[Fogdog]

When you earn 0.1% in a CD or savings account, and the CPI is running at 2-3%, you are getting killed. How many groceries does 0.1% even buy?

The income of a median wage earner is about 35k per year. Median household income is 55k per year.

I know the above is median and the following is average but it's the best I can find.

Average annual consumer spending in the US was 63k in 2019.

Is the low savings rate in the US really due to low interest rates?

It appears to me that you start with a theory and then look for something to hang it upon.

 

[hanimmal]

When you earn 0.1% in a CD or savings account, and the CPI is running at 2-3%, you are getting killed. How many groceries does 0.1% even buy?

Are you talking about a particular dollar amount? You put some percentages up there but are not giving any numbers to go from.

At least you are not using arbitrary numbers I guess, but it really comes down to people and land.

If you are talking about people who are not able to buy a house, say due to redlining and job opportunities, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits of inflation. But all those white men coming home from the war able to take out dirt cheap government loans and buy land/house in the burbs for $9k, have benefitted greatly from inflation.

And the interest rates that the Fed keeps set to have stable inflation and low UE, benefit us all from keeping the economy more stable.

 

[Fogdog]

FFS, who do you think funded it?

Rather than insult my intelligence, perhaps you could resort to something other than a logical fallacy called a leading question.

Explain yourself.

What are you trying to say? That all events are driven by a Jewish cabal? It's probably unfair of me to jump to that conclusion but some people have tried to make the same argument here before.

 

[The Monarch]

Rather than insult my intelligence, perhaps you could resort to something other than a logical fallacy called a leading question.

Explain yourself.

What are you trying to say? That all events are driven by a Jewish cabal? It's probably unfair of me to jump to that conclusion but some people have tried to make the same argument here before.

Who funded the development of factory automation and Artificial Intelligence? I contend it was business owners and their employees. That is all I am saying. And now I am leaving!
Eta: yes, it was incredibly unfair of you to go there. I’m getting away from the internet for a while, suggest you do the same

 

[Fogdog]

Who funded the development of factory automation and Artificial Intelligence? I contend it was business owners and their employees. That is all I am saying. And now I am leaving!
Eta: yes, it was incredibly unfair of you to go there. I’m getting away from the internet for a while, suggest you do the same

There IS a large group made economically insecure by the shift toward automation. Their economic anxiety is a result of loss in economic status for those people who are displaced. That is driving the recent divisive political climate. Shifting technology has always caused some harm as well as good. Hence the "Frankenstein's Monster" trope. But is it really all due to Capital? Without public investment in research, automation like we are now seeing would not exist.

You seem to have gotten off track. I think now you are saying investments made by Capital is why we got Trump AND Biden? That is not what you said earlier:

Perhaps, but it was Capital that got Trump elected, you can’t win the WH on just the donor class. When sentiment shifted, they changed their tune (and donations). There are a ton of German firms still in operation that did just fine under Hitler. Politicians are temporary, Capital is forever.

ETA: I’m just presenting the present, based on past activities, not a prediction. This is the world we live in - things are actually more equal in Zimbabwe and the Congo Republic

Here is the contradiction in your statements (above)

"Capital...got Trump elected"

"When sentiment shifted they changed their tune (and donation)"

What changed "sentiment"? Who is driving your theory? Is it Capital or is it changes in sentiment? What caused the change in sentiment? Capitol? Provide something for me to read that agrees with your theory, please. I need to understand where you are coming from, because to me, you are assigning too much weight to Capital and nothing to events and trends that are outside of Capital's control.

 

[CunningCanuk]

The Politics section in RIU is truly legendary. Where else could a big shot PAC manager turn into a snowflake so quickly?

 

[The Monarch]

The Politics section in RIU is truly legendary. Where else could a big shot PAC manager turn into a snowflake so quickly?

You guys are like the gang of kids at the end of City of God
Thanks for calling me a big shot!

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Well, if money isn't that important, why do politicians chase it so much? Corporate cash is very important to the senate races and small donor contributions to the house races. Then there are the PACs and dark money, but money just gets you in the running. Blowing the dog whistle and culture wars, or addressing real problems, appear to be what gets people elected. I doubt a black liberal democrat could get elected to MTG's district, no matter how big a bankroll they had. Likewise for a republican with a billion bucks running against AOC and spouting racist bullshit. Demographics seem to be the deciding factor these days, money gets the message out, but it's the message that counts.

 

[The Monarch]

Are you talking about a particular dollar amount? You put some percentages up there but are not giving any numbers to go from.
At least you are not using arbitrary numbers I guess, but it really comes down to people and land.

If you are talking about people who are not able to buy a house, say due to redlining and job opportunities, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits of inflation. But all those white men coming home from the war able to take out dirt cheap government loans and buy land/house in the burbs for $9k, have benefitted greatly from inflation.

And the interest rates that the Fed keeps set to have stable inflation and low UE, benefit us all from keeping the economy more stable.

“Are you talking about a particular dollar amount?”

Dollar amounts not necessary, it’s the rates that matter.

“But all those white men coming home from the war able to take out dirt cheap government loans and buy land/house in the burbs for $9k, have benefitted greatly from inflation.”

absolutely, owning capital assets is imperative to survive inflation. What I am suggesting is that the risk averse and poor do not own much of them and rely on interest income. So when the Fed cuts they get really tagged.

“And the interest rates that the Fed keeps set to have stable inflation and low UE, benefit us all from keeping the economy more stable.”

That’s their dual mandate, which Congress gave to them in 1976. When Volcker jacked rates a couple of years later, the Fed essentially “reset the board” to deploy Monetarism over Keynesian policies. The idea was we could eliminate recessions and manage the economy by adjusting rates/money supply. Does that benefit everyone? Mostly, but as I mentioned earlier, when the GINI index blows out over the same time period, not equally. Which is why capital assets have been the place to be.

 

[Fogdog]

“Are you talking about a particular dollar amount?”

Dollar amounts not necessary, it’s the rates that matter.

“But all those white men coming home from the war able to take out dirt cheap government loans and buy land/house in the burbs for $9k, have benefitted greatly from inflation.”

absolutely, owning capital assets is imperative to survive inflation. What I am suggesting is that the risk averse and poor do not own much of them and rely on interest income. So when the Fed cuts they get really tagged.

“And the interest rates that the Fed keeps set to have stable inflation and low UE, benefit us all from keeping the economy more stable.”

That’s their dual mandate, which Congress gave to them in 1976. When Volcker jacked rates a couple of years later, the Fed essentially “reset the board” to deploy Monetarism over Keynesian policies. The idea was we could eliminate recessions and manage the economy by adjusting rates/money supply. Does that benefit everyone? Mostly, but as I mentioned earlier, when the GINI index blows out over the same time period, not equally. Which is why capital assets have been the place to be.

"because interest rates are too low, people who have no money are not saving."

Is that your pitch?

 

[hanimmal]

Dollar amounts not necessary, it’s the rates that matter.

You asked if it was enough to buy groceries. Based on the percentage rates you gave, it would clearly matter what the dollar amount is.

So for example, let's say you have $500,000 in a account drawing 2% annually, that would give you about $833 bucks a month, which should pay for most groceries.

But at that point you are far better off reinvesting that savings into something that will give a far higher interest rate.

absolutely, owning capital assets is imperative to survive inflation. What I am suggesting is that the risk averse and poor do not own much of them and rely on interest income. So when the Fed cuts they get really tagged.

Actually earning a paycheck will survive inflation, because wages tend to stay the same with inflation.

You will thrive if you have assets in a inflationary system.

Poor folks don't own much because they are poor. The lack of savings is what stops them from being hurt by the inflation.

That’s their dual mandate, which Congress gave to them in 1976. When Volcker jacked rates a couple of years later, the Fed essentially “reset the board” to deploy Monetarism over Keynesian policies.

Good ole Reaganism. You would think that the Republicans would quit crashing the economy if they loved America for real. But recessions allow all those with huge savings to snatch up all that discounted/distressed capital that they then can sell back as the market improves, further enriching them.

The Republicans are shit with the overall economy, but they sure do keep the power in their few hands.

The idea was we could eliminate recessions and manage the economy by adjusting rates/money supply.

And it has worked very well outside of the Republican stupidity of 'let them fail' mentality.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/another-republican-president-another-recession.1010837/

Does that benefit everyone? Mostly, but as I mentioned earlier, when the GINI index blows out over the same time period, not equally. Which is why capital assets have been the place to be.

Our nation has kept out about 35% (or 66% if you include white women) from being able to take advantage of the emerging economy.

I would argue this fact is why we have a overall shit equality when it comes to prosperity for everyone in our nation that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

 

[The Monarch]

You asked if it was enough to buy groceries. Based on the percentage rates you gave, it would clearly matter what the dollar amount is.

So for example, let's say you have $500,000 in a account drawing 2% annually, that would give you about $833 bucks a month, which should pay for most groceries.

But at that point you are far better off reinvesting that savings into something that will give a far higher interest rate.

Actually earning a paycheck will survive inflation, because wages tend to stay the same with inflation.

You will thrive if you have assets in a inflationary system.

Poor folks don't own much because they are poor. The lack of savings is what stops them from being hurt by the inflation.


Good ole Reaganism. You would think that the Republicans would quit crashing the economy if they loved America for real. But recessions allow all those with huge savings to snatch up all that discounted/distressed capital that they then can sell back as the market improves, further enriching them.

The Republicans are shit with the overall economy, but they sure do keep the power in their few hands.



And it has worked very well outside of the Republican stupidity of 'let them fail' mentality.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/another-republican-president-another-recession.1010837/
View attachment 4895981
Our nation has kept out about 35% (or 66% if you include white women) from being able to take advantage of the emerging economy.

I would argue this fact is why we have a overall shit equality when it comes to prosperity for everyone in our nation that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

Yeah, those Ayn Rand-reading weirdos have made an art out of the fiscal responsibility lie. What did you mean by “Let them die”?

Good point on the labor force, the composition has changed quite a bit over the last 50 years. That’s a good thing, but it also may help explain why middle class real wages have been fairly stagnant.