Society & Culture Thread Title

[Sanders]

It's the one she gave to me. Perhaps because it's the one I would relate to the best. And understand.

Yes but she is completely & utterly wrong in basic economic & policy terms, that's the problem.

in a way only someone fairly early into their career could be.

Its a real clunker

 

[grizzlym]

Yes but she is completely & utterly wrong in basic economic & policy terms, that's the problem.

in a way only someone fairly early into their career could be.

Its a real clunker

Hahaha I'll let her know your think so.

 

[Sanders]

Hahaha I'll let her know your think so.

That's the point, its not just me

All good anyhow

 

[Andre]

Power don't come from a badge, or a gun
Power comes from lying
Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you
Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you got them by the balls

Pfft. By the balls? A eunuch would disagree.

“Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”
“So power is a mummer’s trick?”
“A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”

 

[Sanders]

Hahaha I'll let her know your think so.

Actually I have a minute so i can explain a little

Investment makes the world go round, its what drives economic growth, creates jobs, encourages social mobility and spreads wealth. This can't all be supplied by government and shouldn't be. In fact most believe governments role is to create the conditions that encourage it, more than actually do it themselves. but in any case its a shared job and the more the better. That's a given.

Its why governments have levers like r&d allowances, industry tax breaks, tax sweetheart deals to foreign companies etc etc all those good things. And negative gearing (though this is just a given in many countries and doesn't even have a name, its just a business expense). Private individuals with an investment property are just in business, like major property companies. You'd never think of removing deductability for real businesses and that's all a private investor is, a small business

Anyway, negative gearing is just a way of encouraging investment. which is one of the main aims of government

In terms of what policy you might make if not for court of public opinion, populism and electoral considerations - removing negative gearing is the opposite of your sisters example, it would be the wrong thing to do. Its a good thing, not a wrong thing that's tolerated for votes.

An example of where populism gets in the way, or potentially any way is capital gains tax.

That's a tax on investment. lowering it encourages investment, but is electoral suicide.

Negative gearing encourages investment, CGT discourages it.

The public would call any reduction a sop to the rich, ignoring the little man etc.

That's an example of something economically you might do different if electoral policy didn't get it in the way

Negative gearing is not.

 

[grizzlym]

Actually I have a minute so i can explain a little

Investment makes the world go round, its what drives economic growth, creates jobs, encourages social mobility and spreads wealth. This can't all be supplied by government and shouldn't be. In fact most believe governments role is to create the conditions that encourage it, more than actually do it themselves. but in any case its a shared job and the more the better. That's a given.

Its why governments have levers like r&d allowances, industry tax breaks, tax sweetheart deals to foreign companies etc etc all those good things. And negative gearing (though this is just a given in many countries and doesn't even have a name, its just a business expense). Private individuals with an investment property are just in business, like major property companies. You'd never think of removing deductability for real businesses and that's all a private investor is, a small business

Anyway, negative gearing is just a way of encouraging investment. which is one of the main aims of government

In terms of what policy you might make if not for court of public opinion, populism and electoral considerations - removing negative gearing is the opposite of your sisters example, it would be the wrong thing to do. Its a good thing, not a wrong thing that's tolerated for votes.

An example of where populism gets in the way, or potentially any way is capital gains tax.

That's a tax on investment. lowering it encourages investment, but is electoral suicide.

Negative gearing encourages investment, CGT discourages it.

The public would call any reduction a sop to the rich, ignoring the little man etc.

That's an example of something economically you might do different if electoral policy didn't get it in the way

Negative gearing is not.

She tendered, specifically negative gearing on existing homes. Not the whole concept of negative gearing per se. Says it does little for the economy except for the government to cough up money.

 

[MrCharisma]

Posting for the free like GG gives out to everyone who posts in his threads.

 

[Sanders]

She tendered, specifically negative gearing on existing homes. Not the whole concept of negative gearing per se. Says it does little for the economy except for the government to cough up money.

She wants to shut down the secondary market because it doesn't do much for the government?

What the ****?

The purpose of government isn't the enrichment of government.

And shutting down the secondary market is beyond stupid. that will mean the primary market investors will not be able to exit their investments as easily, which will dampen demand.

Shutting the secondary will damage the secondary & primary markets; which would be very dumb.

Thinking you can impact one without affecting the other is...

 

[grizzlym]

She wants to shut down the secondary market because it doesn't do much for the government?

What the ****?

The purpose of government isn't the enrichment of government.

And shutting down the secondary market is beyond stupid. that will mean the primary market investors will not be able to exit their investments as easily, which will dampen demand.

Shutting the secondary will damage the secondary & primary markets; which would be very dumb.

Thinking you can impact one without affecting the other is...

That was the example she gave. In my words, not hers.

But hey, I know nothing about economics, beyond paying my mortgage. So if you want to take up the intricacies of that particular discussion, debate the finer points, you'll have to find someone else to do it with 'cause it 'aint my thing.

The conversation was about the politics of staying in power and the unwillingness of governments to make hard decisions for fear of getting voted out.

I was merely relaying a thought exercise.

 

[Sanders]

That was the example she gave. In my words, not hers.

But hey, I know nothing about economics, beyond paying my mortgage. So if you want to take up the intricacies of that particular discussion, debate the finer points, you'll have to find someone else to do it with 'cause it 'aint my thing.

The conversation was about the politics of staying in power and the unwillingness of governments to make hard decisions for fear of getting voted out.

I was merely relaying a thought exercise.

And as I said, she gave a very peculiar example because what I argued isn't very controversial or really in dispute.

Anyhoo no harm done

 

[DrVanNostrand]

Posting for the free like GG gives out to everyone who posts in his threads.

This is BS. I did this in another GG thread and got nothing

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

With GG you dont get what you expect you get what you deserve

You're a fascinating man. I enjoy your threads for the ammo they give for use in conversation with a few out-there people I know.

 

[The Passenger]

I would like to see GG and blackcat sharing a few beers and a yarn together. No doubt it would be one of the most cryptic conversations man has ever witnessed.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[exe ex machina]

.