mlsv2f

Two schoolmates of mine are social media were going on and on about how big of dickheads the more productive employees who left were. "like why do they care about what someone else makes? It doesn't effect them!" was the main theme. I wanted to interject by pointing out the irony in their statements, and add that their entire political view on taxes is that people who make more owe more, but sometimes you can't fix stupid

Hi all, I am considering purchasing a home in the next 6-18 months. My plan has been to wait until the stock market corrects itself, as I think its pretty clear we are experiencing and inflation and QE induced bubble. With that being said, I listened to the podcast with Schiff last night an I began to think, if the dollar collapses before the market, it would make housing prices skyrocket first. My thoughts are that they would let the stock market collapse before the dollar ever collapsed, as they can buy more time with QE 4/5. Additionally they can blame the market for a stock crash, but can't blame the market for a dollar crash (maybe they will try, it wouldn't surprise me haha) I wanted to get your thoughts on this, and any other considerations you would want to add. I currently reside in Houston, Texas. Thanks

Come on guys, be part of progress!

I suppose my problem with the argument is it completely disregards the high IQ and K reproductive strategy that is associated with Asians. This is also left out of the white privilege discussion as well. The strongest correlation to life/financial success is IQ, and its always left out. This is a very material fact to the argument. In short, this group of people is successful because they have a high IQ (On average), not because they come from Asia, and not because the government helps them. (It also disregards the higher admission standards Asians face in college admissions, another material fact to the discussion) It also suggests that government help in the US the reason for Asian success, but fails to recognize the fact that Asians do very well in Asian, and outside of Asian countries all over the world. I get when your saying, and it could be useful to consider than smarter parents tend to display and distill these behaviors more often than those with lower IQs. To add, calling this "asian privilege" suggests an unfair advantage and emits a sense of guilt, in the same way white privilege does. A person that is born Asian is by no means given advantages because they are specifically Asian, and there is nothing stopping a family of a different ethnicity from doing the things many Asian families do. From the article, "This advantage is not available to other working-class immigrants." Correlation/Causation and Cause/Effect seem to get mixed backwards whenever these privilege articles get written. Well, my entire first post was deleted. But for a much shorter regurgitation, the article fails to mention the higher IQ scores asians tend to score on a global scale. Asians in asia and Asians in Europe/North America tend to have the highest scores in the world. Being the strong correlation between IQ tests and life/financial success, this is a material fact being left out. This is always left out when we discuss the plight of certain minority groups as well. The article also mentioned how government helps Asians more than others, but fails to mention the higher admission standards Asians have to deal with. Further, calling it "Asian Privilege" makes it as if Asians are given access to certain things that other cultures are not, which is false and unfair to all cultures. They go to the same shitty public schools as the rest of us, and there is nothing stopping a parent of any ethnic group from promoting education and a good work ethic. This is the same narrative that is promoted towards from white privilege, that the reason a person is doing well is because they have a magic skin color or country of origin. You don't show up to the test and get an A because you are white or Asian, you get an A because you made a choice to study. You don't get handed a 6 figure salary because you are white or Asian, you do so because you have demonstrated enough value to the job market to warrant the job offer, and your performance allows you to keep the job.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/opinions/lee-immigration-ethnic-capital/index.html "But it isn't Asian "culture" or any other attribute of ethnicity that is responsible for this success. Instead, it's a unique form of privilege that is grounded in the socioeconomic origins of some -- not all -- Asian immigrant groups. Understanding this privilege offers insights into how we can help children from all backgrounds succeed." Can't really say I am surprised, but thought it was be worth a read to see just how bad some of the information they publish are. Is Jewish culture next?

I really can't find what Bernie Sanders did for a living from 22-39 before he was elected mayor. Thomasio, you seem to be a fan, do you have any idea?

" I have no clue how much he is worth" He is required to disclose his assets as part of being in congress as such, based on signed representations from him hes worth around 300k. link-http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/17/senate-politics-washington-biz-wash_cx_jh_1120senate.html Actually though, upon further review, he made about 1.8 Million in speaking affairs in 2015, so I have no idea how is getting away with this facade. "Voters should be grateful for the government transparency laws that required Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to reveal how much he made last year in speaking engagement fees. The total is $1,867.42 for three appearances, a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity." You're speculating on how he handles large some of money he has been paid as a government official over his lifetime, until you can provide evidence as such, speculation can't be argued for or/against. Further, why is it okay for Bernie Sanders to use the millions he was given as a result of the state for his own personal spending, but anyone else he labels as a greedy capitalist? you mentioned earlier in this threat that inheriting money was parasitical, and should be stopped by government programs, why is this case different when it comes to Bernie giving away money to his family? Regardless, his presentation of himself as a middle class guy is a fraud. Saying things like ,"I don't have any millionaire friends", when in fact, hes probably been paid 5 million from the state in his lifetime, and received a similar amount from speeches, is misleading.

I'm interested to understand how he only has a net worth of 300-400k as I keep seeing published? Based on Congressional and Rep salaries, which are published and historically documented each year. He has made over 3.5 million dollars as a senator and rep since he was 49. From age 39-49, he was a mayor, I'm assuming he made a decent living and saved some money there as well. He graduated college at 22-so I would imagine he worked/saved a bit from 22-39 It doesn't really add up Is he lying about his money or is he awful with money? (Probably both since hes a socialist politician hehe)

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php Good Article above on Full vs. Part time

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-07-09/s-p-falling-by-20-percent-may-prompt-qe4-faber-says?cmpid=yhoo QE4? At what point do people start to see that the market and economy are not healthy at this point, and by pumping printed/borrowed money into it won't change things? Didn't P. Schiff call this?

Whole foods offers high end products Kroger/Local Chains provides similar cost saving, but more variety and nicer feel Organic Chain markets like Sprouts offer a health Niche Trader Joes offers a mix between Sprouts/WalMart Local markets offer a specialized local feel Local Meat Markets offer specialized meat and butcher cuts you can't find elsewhere Costco offers cheaper goods at a large scale than walmart Target offers a bit nicer version of walmart That's just for food, there is an endless amount of revenue creating business ventures that you can succeed with, as long with the option to go into various professional positions and attain wealth by making partner/C-Suite ect. You can also have a regular career, work diligently and harder than the average person, be smart with your savings and retire with literally millions in your portfolio, especially if you are frugal in your early years. (I have a friend who is a personal trainer and will probably be retiring in his mid 50's with a couple million dollars based on the pace hes at) Your inability to come up with a business plan to beat wal-mart is not justification for being able to steal from people, even when dead, because you want society (yourself in all reality) to have.

What if people leave the country with their wealth? Do you prevent them from leaving? As mentioned above, your narrative still relies on two false pretenses 1)Only the super wealthy would be effected, this isn't the case, refer to #13 2)The upper middle, middle, and lower classes would all be beneficiaries, refer to post #13 These practices have been tried before you have they not?

Simple pointing out that one isn't on the Maldive islands or isn't a billionaire isn't an argument though. Your premise still lies on two false narratives 1.)Bernie Sander's initiatives only would effect the super wealthy-this isnt the case, see my case above at #13 2)Bernie Sander's Initiatives would help all those who are not super wealthy-see my case above at #13. If you want to keep the topic to only include the super wealthy, we can. But even at that, all his policies would do is encourage these people to keep their citizenship and capital, elsewhere (such as Cayman or Monaco), which then shifts more of a burden on the top 10-2% (it surely won't shift to the bottom 55% which elected him, even if he wanted to, there are not enough of them working in the free market to even remotely cover the policies he wants mandated) Similar to how someone posting here would indicate they are probably not a carefree billionaire, you being naive enough to think a socialist government would have a positive impact on a person earning 100-500k a year is just as telling.

Only 62.6% of the people in this country have a job Further, the number of part time jobs makes up about 18% of this, before the "great recession", this was at about 16% We have gotten into almost 19 trillion in debt doing this. The main stream solution, it appears, is to double the minimum wage and increase corporate taxes. So much progress http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 - http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php

So as long as a politician steals from others, its okay for me to support it? Further, his massive spending will increase debts and cause more inflation, which effects everyone. He will put in an executive order jamming min wage to 12-15 dollars, causing prices to rise and more inflation. He wants a mandated, single payer health care system. If you make more money than probably 55/60th percentile, chances are, you will be overpaying here as well. As a married couple in the 33% bracket, I think its safe to say that I will be paying more. If you think hes only going to change life for the wealthiest of the wealthy, and everyone else will benefit, you're drinking the same kool-aid the Greeks did when they elected their current communist leader, who is now taxing people who make 48k a year at 42%. Finally, the premise that "socialist policies help society" is false. Long term, no one is going to be "beneficiaries". This can been seen all over the world in the past century. The most successful countries that have quasi-socialist policies are the Nordics. When we compare the average of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, they have a slightly lower median income to the USA , with 33% higher prices and higher taxes. Meaning that even in these "paradises" people have a fraction of the disposable income they do here on average, which means people have less money to save/invest and are more dependent on the decisions of the politicians. No thanks

That's a good way to put it, perhaps I just need to get past my pride and realize that a total system failure is what it would take for people to learn and accept the coming storm.

Even for a politician, he LOVES using terms like "fair share", "common sense", "progressive agenda" and "responsibility".

I don't know about that. To me, the perception that you are there to help people is the entire cloak that socialist politicians hide under. He poses as an "independent" but is going for the democratic primary ticket. At least the other crooks are openly part of the two party system, instead of pretending not to be apart of it. As stated above, he is using misleading information to convince people to raise taxes. Either he is lying, or is he is not checking the facts he is using to create new laws, either way, a person with good intentions typically doesn't do such a thing. He speaks out against career politicians and wants term limits and career limits in politics, but he himself is a career politician. Someone that high up in government surely knows how things operate, and so I just have a hard time believing he is THAT naive. Additionally, when you look at some of his statements, they reek of sophistry. "We have a responsibility to leave the planet better for our children" Anyone who attacks this statement is going to get accused of disliking children. When in fact, This is a guy who advocates creating large national debt that those children will have to pay off Perhaps I'm wrong though, I would be perfectly willing to listen to an argument otherwise

A common theme of his narrative is that taxation in the 1930-1950 was much higher than it was now, and thus we should go back to that time period. This is in fact a lie http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 Tax revenues from 1930-1950 averaged about 9.2% of GDP In 2014, it was about 17.5% Granted, even when you point this out to people, they move the goalpost, call you names, ect. Anyway, He seems to be getting a lot of national attention, the media loves him, and it seems they have turned their back on Hilary and double downed on Bernie. I thought we could have a discussion on the illogical and sophist nature of his arguments

I moved to Texas in order to obtain a higher salary and lower taxation, as much as I dislike some of the Texas big right wing government culture, it sure beats the Marxists that seem to be popping up everywhere else. But back to your link, I think this is a big reason why the barriers are put into place such as taxation of overseas income, passports, requirement to get a visa in the other country just to stay there, an additional visa that is required in other countries just to get a job. This is why communist countries typically don't allow you to leave. Socialism doesn't work when people can leave. Which is why the appeal of global socialism is so great to the followers, because it would eliminate border restrictions or barriers. This is the direction we are heading and its quite scary. Steph made an interesting point once in a a podcast a few years ago 100 years ago there existed almost no income tax, no passports were needed, no visas were needed. Today, we have been made less free and we were 100 years ago. If these government wars were for our freedom, why have we become less free?

Interesting how the papers have massaged the fact that the people's money is being held hostage by the central banks. "In order to prevent capital from leaving the country, the central banks have closed all banks and put limits on ATM withdrawals" This is direct control of other people's money, and yet, when textbooks and statist economics speak of the role of central banks, never do they mention that they exist to serve as a way to trap people's money in a failing country. The central banks, as governments, are always said to be in existence to help the people, and yet once again, when the people want to remove their money from the banks, they are not allowed to.

Really sad story, My thoughts on this is that the media is going to overplay this and direct as much racial tension as possible. With the police riots, they were able use many white's skepticism of government into dislike of blacks. I saw many "libertarian" friends cheer on the idea of martial law, and limitless cops What we will see with this, is an attempt to get many blacks, who have started to become skeptical of government, into a) disliking whites more, and b) going back to the state for protection and gun control. I am seeing many black friends who started to question government recently, start to cheer on gun laws now. The end result, is that whites and blacks grow more and more apart, and go to government more and more. Not sure if this is intentional or just an effect, but just some observations and thoughts on the media coverage of it. When Whites and Blacks don't get along, big government wins.

Their solution is always raise costs/taxes/size of government I'm sure that's going to help

Their argument is that since money is increasing value by 1% every year in a deflationary economy, people won't spend money. This is pretty much bullshit in that A) People have the ability to save money and earn 1-12% in T-bills, money market checking accounts, savings accounts, equity and bonds and they dont't save anything B) Electronics and cars decline in value (you can get a waaaay better version of something if you wait another year) C) Peoples lives are finite, thus they are not going to save money to the point of reclusiveness on account of a 1-2% increase in money value D) Saving money and better long term for the individual and society as a whole My understanding of the argument against deflation is typically weak but most people are stupid and when they read in their econ 101 text book, the front page of the NYT, their favorite politician or news channel say so, they just assume its correct.

So I recently shorted a bunch of Greek banking stocks and I'm going to double down and short their whole exchange. No communist debt ridden economy is going to grow in the near term. Is this unethical? I plan on doing so on each index of each country as these dominoes fall.