@Scratchin_Bandit @Synopsis have you both even tried to objectively read it's coverage or are just dismissing it because of it's twitter account and British left politics 🤦‍♂️

not only would i vote for her, i would literally kill someone for my queen

If you even do so much as thinking about voting for anyone you already lost

No, i didn't.

You said if certain progressive policies were implemented, it could significantly harm a majority of people in this country. Whether that is true or not is one thing, but if that happens to be the case, then there is something fundamentally wrong with an economic structure where moderate social reforms hurt a lot of people. Its an economic structure that needs to be done away with as swiftly as possible

and yeah one scan of his wiki page and what he believes in should help you with that

not even sure what this is supposed to mean

but i dont have time for people or publications that support what they support

Right so continue to not challenge your own views.

and you said i was stretching lol

There are systematic issues unique to America and it's history, that's correct. It has morphed our economy and has in my view increased the level of inequality.

But as you acknowledged, in just the example we talked about this particular policy hurts a majority of people. Who are you to say this makes a majority of people better off? That's speculation without looking at cost/benefit a***ysis which goes into different individuals circumstances and looking at aggregates of different populations.

I'm guessing you listen Chomsky (who I respect) a lot and it's why you're so quick to dismiss a Chicago school economist as a hack by 'skimming a Wikipedia page'. You're not having an honest discussion here by doing so and it's a bad look.
Zingales wasn't even the one opposing the investment tax in that podcast episode, he was mediating between Waldock who was in favor of it vs Gene Fama who pointed out the issues. If you knew anything about him and his work you'd hardly consider him a 'hack'.

Edit

The actual stretching was that we're looking at policy which fits our current situation best. Me pointing an issues at one specific policy and you moving into a socioeconomic structural redoing is a whoooole other thing.

But who says it hurts a majority of people? People who might be predisposed to being opposed to the social reforms? Have you done anything that might confirm or deny this position, or are you taking their word for it? I'm not just going to take your word for it that this would harm a bunch of people when we have actual evidence from across the world that these social reforms don't hurt people lol, as well as studies showing how they would help people.

And no, I don't listen to chomsky "a lot." But yeah when a guy wants to get rid of all taxes except a consumption tax, that screams hack to me.

Anyways if you want to know why the economist is not worth reading, currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks

just read this and follow some of the links

Will read later

lmaooooo

lmao

How do you think state retirement and pension funds work? In the private sector alone the number of 401k holders is around 120M (I don't know the state number). I don't need to explain what a huge drop in asset prices will do to people's retirement accounts and their livelihoods. 120M people in just private sector alone..

Those are just retirement funds.

Now, you have different government entities which support themselves through investment instruments/assets. These special purpose funds are used for covering SSI/Disability/Infrastructure and many other important expenses. Those large cap assets/securities held in 401ks are also there, again an investment tax will impact these significantly. Sudden drop in asset prices and suddenly the states are struggling to support their core expenses for their state employees. Taxes would probably come up further to compensate for that at all levels and so not only are people's retirement prospects hit, they're also paying higher taxes.

I'll leave the consumption tax discussion alone because that's a whole other thing and too off topic.

Yes dismiss the crisis of debt which could devalue the US dollar.

For the millionth time, govt spending by itself does not cause inflation we would need to max out on aggregate demand and reach real total unemployment of 0%.

For reference the govt spent something close to 50% of GDP during WW2 and was able to control inflation to 1-2%

first, ur numbers are off most likely

pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-many-american-workers-participate-workplace-retirement-plans

so youve got 75 mil for that first category, and way less for all the other categories.

and plz source ur info

cant wait for amazing austerity politics!

What are you even talking about 🤦‍♂️

Explain the mechanisms of how the treasury and fed's bond issuance/buy backs with the banks work.

Now, tell me what happens when the banks don't want to buy back the bonds if the economy tanks badly enough where the banks aren't in position to repurchase them from the government. It's inflation.

With that treasury securities issue related inflation, our debt WILL increase significantly as our main mechanism for paying for this has failed and we need to leverage ourselves even more to other nations.

im not an economist and really don't care for all this discussion about investments and assets and all that, but something tells me these conservative, free market economists dont have the best interests of the ppl in mind when making their arguments

anyways, my entire point is, if we have a system that makes it so moderate social reforms are going to hurt a bunch of people, then that system needs to be done away with. that's the point. argue it or don't.

but in reality these economists and owners of capital have been arguing against pro worker reforms for over a century claiming it would tank the economy and not be good. theyve been wrong like, every time.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't look to understand the significance economics plays. The fact you brought conservatism into the convo just muddies the waters of a***yzing public policy when it's supposed to be an objective cross section between social implications/economics. The politics of source doesn't need to come into play if the information they present is true. I'm guessing you're distrusting of what you don't understand automatically.

I got my figures from the same source as you but miscalculated. The number in the private sector is 105.49M with 137M total workers in state & private where 55% are in a retirement plan and 22% have a pension.