Aside: I nearly did it for the first time... I nearly put "Trump" with the word "Presidency" following it. Petty? Sure, but I have gone over a year now without saying his position and his name at the same time, and I refuse to start now.
QuoteLast week, my colleague Nate Silver used census data to show that education, not income, determined the shift from Republican to Democratic votes in the 2016 election. It turns out that the exit polls can also help us confirm and expand that thesis.
First, it’s clear from the exit polls that for white voters, every bit of extra education meant less support for Trump.1 That is, it wasn’t just a matter of attending college or getting a degree. While much has been made of the college and non-college divide (which is stark), Trump actually won whites who earned only a bachelor’s degree by a fairly wide margin. Just as big a gap was between the votes of those who graduated from college and those who went to graduate school. The latter group supported Clinton in much larger numbers.
Second, education matters a lot even when separating out income levels. Trump won by 24 percentage points or more among every single income group of whites without a college education than those with one. In his worst income group among those without a college degree, he did over 20 percentage points better than he did in his best income group among whites with a college degree. Among those making between $30,000 and $99,999, the difference is about 40 percentage points.
Third, Trump saw little difference in his support between income levels within each education group. He won every single income group among those with no college degree by between 32 percentage points and 49 percentage points. He saw a 16 percentage point gap in his margin between his worst and best income group among whites with at least a college degree. Further, there isn’t a clear effect of income across most education groups. Trump’s two worst groups among college whites were those who earn less than $50,000 and those earning more than $200,000. Among whites without a college degree, one of his best groups was those earning $200,000 or more per year.
This is why I find this talk about the "campus culture" to be very dangerous; first, it isn't particularly accurate... no more than saying white culture is predominately racist, or that African Americans are gangbangers. The truth is college campuses are as diverse as literally any other field you could place here, both in terms of culture and in terms of what they teach.
Second it legitimizes this idea of an "intellectual elite" class that is out to destroy Western culture and emboldens this regressive discourse that education is something to be feared and hatred rather than something we should strive for. And in doing so, it allows powerful political groups to exploit that fear and hatred for their own gains while further driving a wedge between the working class.
Are there problems with the university culture? Yes. Yes. Yes. But to say it is blown out of proportion is one of the understatements of the year, and the dialog surrounding it is not one based on reality but rather one powerful groups are using to further divide and conquer the American people.
This hatred for higher education, this fear of "university culture"... it's all a tool to help secure their power. By all means, there is shit universities and their students do that is batshit crazy, and by all means call them out on it... but we need to stop acting like the Rudy Martinezs, the crazy yelling feminist on the quad, whatever... is representative of the college culture as a whole. It's not; the overwhelming majority of us are people working 1, 2 jobs who have been fed a myth that dropping tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (thus driving us into debt) into a higher education will secure our financial future. We just want to get in, get out, and hope that the American Dream of working hard and doing what our teacher's told us was the smart thing to do (in hindsight, college was not a smart choice) pays off.
Happy are those with a PhD, and MD and a JD ... and who see all others as bugs.
Intelligence, is the result of male autism, and of mixed results, given the anti-social nature of intellectuals (see Marx).
The time, in the Middle Ages, when there was an actual battle, with casualties, between Oxford University, and the town of Oxford. This is why young men are drafted into the British Navy or Army, and sent overseas to bother foreigners ;-)
I am highly educated, and see, but don't despair, that the majority accept such nobodies as George W or Donald, or many other sociopaths. Why unlike Czech Republic, did we not have a leader like Vaclav Havel? A famous author?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Havel
It may be because of the aridity of American culture, which is derivative and consumerist.
You better start thinking that Trump IS President. And THEN start challenging the gerrymandering that made him so. Get down to the roots and build up...
Read all It is a good thing for me. I read a lot of good knowledge.
Quote from: Nookynaree on January 15, 2018, 02:59:28 AM
Read all It is a good thing for me. I read a lot of good knowledge.
Please make an introduction.
Quote from: Baruch on January 15, 2018, 03:06:12 AM
Please make an introduction.
Nookynaree smells like a bot. Or a spammer in waiting.
Quote from: pr126 on January 15, 2018, 03:10:58 AM
Nookynaree smells like a bot. Or a spammer in waiting.
Yeah, a test post to see if it got in.
This is what "education" means now. Nothing but demagoguery among the inferior people. (https://youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM)
Quote from: orcus on January 16, 2018, 01:00:33 AM
This is what "education" means now. Nothing but demagoguery among the inferior people. (https://youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM)
That is a tell. I bet you don't consider yourself inferior then?
There's an issue here with asserting correlation as causation.
People who go to school for longer tend to be different from the rest of the population in a number of ways to start with. How much of Clinton support was "Attended Graduate School --> Voted Clinton" and how much was "Highly Values Education --> Voted Clinton"?
It's hardly news that Trump isn't exactly the pro-education candidate.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 10, 2018, 12:03:04 PM
You better start thinking that Trump IS President. And THEN start challenging the gerrymandering that made him so. Get down to the roots and build up...
Gerrymandering had nothing to do with that, it was the Electoral College -- although one could make a case that the Electoral College represents a sort of national gerrymandering, I suppose.
Gerrymandering is what keeps the GOP in power in the House, and yes, that very much needs to be rooted out. I just wish I felt better about the current Supreme Court tackling it.
Quote from: orcus on January 16, 2018, 01:00:33 AM
This is what "education" means now. Nothing but demagoguery among the inferior people. (https://youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM)
Smacks of trumpie/racist drive by. Well, keep on driving..............................
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 12:36:39 PM
I just wish I felt better about the current Supreme Court tackling it.
It's unfortunate, but any Supreme Court is sort of a threat to progressive ideals. Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
No subconscious motivation to share or play nice if you hold almost all the cards already.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
It's unfortunate, but any Supreme Court is sort of a threat to progressive ideals. Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
No subconscious motivation to share or play nice if you hold almost all the cards already.
Actually, there's a considerable body of evidence that Supreme Court justices tend to move leftwards over the course of their time on the bench (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices) -- this is not the same as moving to a politically liberal position, but they usually retire or die occupying a political position that is either less conservative or more liberal than where they started.
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 12:36:39 PM
Gerrymandering had nothing to do with that, it was the Electoral College -- although one could make a case that the Electoral College represents a sort of national gerrymandering, I suppose.
Gerrymandering is what keeps the GOP in power in the House, and yes, that very much needs to be rooted out. I just wish I felt better about the current Supreme Court tackling it.
Resurrect Zombis Scalia ... maybe he will arbitrarily decide all elections in your favor ... bwahaha.
Yes, if we had a different Constitution, we would be British. No electoral college nor senate, just a House of Lords.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
It's unfortunate, but any Supreme Court is sort of a threat to progressive ideals. Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
No subconscious motivation to share or play nice if you hold almost all the cards already.
In most decades of US history, SCOTUS is quite conservative indeed. Only FDR gerrymandering it, caused any racial progress at all.
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 01:30:25 PM
Actually, there's a considerable body of evidence that Supreme Court justices tend to move leftwards over the course of their time on the bench (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices) -- this is not the same as moving to a politically liberal position, but they usually retire or die occupying a political position that is either less conservative or more liberal than where they started.
That is new to me, but it only suggests that they move left
after they become a Supreme Court justice. There's still good evidence that 1) being in a position of advantage makes you more conservative (especially on economic issues), and 2) defense attorneys are far left, prosecutors are fairly left, low-level judges are fairly right, and high-level judges are far right... relative to the legal profession as a whole.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
That is new to me, but it only suggests that they move left after they become a Supreme Court justice. There's still good evidence that 1) being in a position of advantage makes you more conservative (especially on economic issues), and 2) defense attorneys are far left, prosecutors are fairly left, low-level judges are fairly right, and high-level judges are far right... relative to the legal profession as a whole.
In my experience, being old, or getting older makes you more conservative on average. SCOTUS is old folks, getting older. I don't see any chance of Benjamin Button being on the bench.
Too bad Harry Stone doesn't really exist - now there was a good judge!
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 16, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
Too bad Harry Stone doesn't really exist - now there was a good judge!
I prefer the blonde with the English royalty fetish ;-)
Actually, I liked Selma a lot. She once quit smoking for half an hour, but said she didn't feel a bit better.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 16, 2018, 12:47:35 PM
Smacks of trumpie/racist drive by. Well, keep on driving..............................
Yes because you have to be racist and "trumpie" to think these people are fucking morons and that they should be punished for their criminal antics.
Quote from: orcus on January 16, 2018, 04:21:19 PM
Yes because you have to be racist and "trumpie" to think these people are fucking morons and that they should be punished for their criminal antics.
Crimes don't actually exist, so generally when people say something about "punishing criminals" what they're actually saying is "beat up people who don't share my values."
That does kind of imply you're racist.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 04:38:16 PM
Crimes don't actually exist, so generally when people say something about "punishing criminals"
True, but the activity exists and engaging in it has been deemed to be criminal.
Somehow, I doubt I could argue my way out of a speeding ticket by telling the cop that traffic laws are artificial constructs.
Quotewhat they're actually saying is "beat up people who don't share my values."
That does kind of imply you're racist.
Dafuq is this nonsense??
P1: laws are artificial constructs
P2: ???
C: The President isn't beholden to the law.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 16, 2018, 05:14:34 PM
True [, ...] laws are artificial constructs.
Dafuq is this nonsense??
Follow the white rabbit.
Laws are constructs.
Why are they constructed?
Because someone wants them to be.
Who wants them to be enforced? People who agree with them or find them beneficial.
Who breaks them? People who don't agree with them or find them detrimental.
If someone is very vocal about wanting laws to be enforced when it would disproportionately fall on the heads of minority "racial" groups or their allies, that person is most likely racist. Not every time, though.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 04:38:16 PM
Crimes don't actually exist, so generally when people say something about "punishing criminals" what they're actually saying is "beat up people who don't share my values."
That does kind of imply you're racist.
If there's no crime then it doesn't matter if I'm racist or anything else, isn't that one natural conclusion of what you're saying?
Also, I'm beginning to feel as if this campus leftism is in a way a protocol of secession. I say fucking go for it, secede from America and starve in like 4 weeks. It will be hilarious.
Quote from: orcus on January 16, 2018, 06:15:44 PM
If there's no crime then it doesn't matter if I'm racist or anything else, isn't that one natural conclusion of what you're saying?
Also, I'm beginning to feel as if this campus leftism is in a way a protocol of secession. I say fucking go for it, secede from America and starve in like 4 weeks. It will be hilarious.
We will eat your flesh, drink your blood and piss on your remains ... don't provoke werewolves or zombies. Of course Democrats are secessionists, they always have been ... 1776, 1861 etc. I look forward to California being under Federal occupation for 10 years, just like Georgia 1865 - 1875. Georgians were involved in human trafficking back then, and Californios are involved in human trafficking today.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 04:38:16 PM
Crimes don't actually exist, so generally when people say something about "punishing criminals" what they're actually saying is "beat up people who don't share my values."
That does kind of imply you're racist.
The majority always virtue signal, that they aren't criminals. I know better. The majority can be criminal in a very ferocious way.
Quote from: orcus on January 16, 2018, 06:15:44 PM
If there's no crime then it doesn't matter if I'm racist or anything else, isn't that one natural conclusion of what you're saying?
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
I mean, there are social consequences to appearing racist to the wrong people, though. Whether it's true or not. Which makes it another case of "it's only a crime if you get caught."
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 07:14:57 PM
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
I mean, there are social consequences to appearing racist to the wrong people, though. Whether it's true or not. Which makes it another case of "it's only a crime if you get caught."
Without perception, people are just dumb animals. But our perception of the same things, differs. Hence conflict. I simply don't care if someone is taller or shorter than I am. I don't think I am superior or inferior to someone because of height. But because I am not a violent advocate for dwarf liberation (ala French Revolution) doesn't mean I am a fellow traveler .. of heightism.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
But because I am not a violent advocate for dwarf liberation (ala French Revolution) doesn't mean I am a fellow traveler .. of heightism.
To be fair, if you really don't like it when people are taller than you are, it's always an option to cut off their legs. It doesn't
have to be the head.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
That is new to me, but it only suggests that they move left after they become a Supreme Court justice. There's still good evidence that 1) being in a position of advantage makes you more conservative (especially on economic issues), and 2) defense attorneys are far left, prosecutors are fairly left, low-level judges are fairly right, and high-level judges are far right... relative to the legal profession as a whole.
You can't make that assumption. No data to support it, nor is it a reasonable extrapolation from the research shown. You just want to try to justify your unsupported comment from before, and you're doing it by making up something whole cloth.
I showed you data, you show me yours.
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 11:14:02 PM
You can't make that assumption. No data to support it,
I'll just spit tons of relevant data at you, then.
Point 1:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html
http://www.occonnect.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16601
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X89900421
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.372/pdf
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/6524-study-estrogen-fuels-female-need-for-power-and-control
https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/high-estrogen-levels-make-women-more-attractive
https://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies
I included some naive attempts at refutation which really just manage to support the point. You may notice.
Basically... uh, it's biology. Natch.
Point 2:
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/2/277/2502548
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577378
But yeah, "there's no data" because it's not data you like.
Ideology trumps facts, for both parties ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2018, 02:10:21 PM
Ideology trumps facts, for both parties ;-(
Eh, did I do something wrong?
If so, I'd love to hear about it. I do worry I'm a bit too committed to the "everyone is wrong" path and discarding things even when they're right.
(Though I wonder why justices become more leftist over time... Decreasing psychological salience of the successful rise to power over time spent in a position where power is held for life once gained? There's good evidence that lack of competition facilitates fairer treatment of people, so sitting on a bench where the only way off is to retire or die would probably be a good treatment for competitive anti-outgroup bias...)
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
I'll just spit tons of relevant data at you, then.
Point 1:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html
http://www.occonnect.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16601
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X89900421
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.372/pdf
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/6524-study-estrogen-fuels-female-need-for-power-and-control
https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/high-estrogen-levels-make-women-more-attractive
https://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies
I included some naive attempts at refutation which really just manage to support the point. You may notice.
Basically... uh, it's biology. Natch.
Point 2:
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/2/277/2502548
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577378
With regard to point 1, only the very first link has any tenuous relevance. The rest are about testosterone and estrogen -- got a problem you want to discuss here? Sorry, I'm not a doctor. Even the first link, that the wealthy tend Republican, undercuts the assertion that the wealthy are more conservative. They trend more conservative
on economic issues, not across the board, and are
more socially liberal/libertarian than the poor and middle classes.
So, nice cherry-pick there.
With regard to point 2, neither of these addresses whether judges
become more conservative, or are nowadays more conservative
when appointed than the average judge used to be.
Your own original assertion:
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
Not demonstrated. Neither of these studies show that being made a judge
makes you more conservative, only that judges
are more conservative, and the reason for that is quite easy to see: the wholesale blocking of judicial appointments by the (Republican) Senate under President Obama, of which the case of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was only the most egregious. Now that they have one of their own in the White House, why, all of a sudden they have plenty of time to hold hearings and votes.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
But yeah, "there's no data" because it's not data you like.
Wrong. "there's no data" because
you didn't fucking provide any when you made your assertion. And when pushed, you provided irrelevance.
Quote from: trdsf on January 17, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
blah blah blah
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Anyway.
"On economic issues!"
Not only did I mention that in the first place (I guess you just forgot?), but also economic issues are more important to partisan affiliation. Actually, if you look at Libertarians, you can see this--all evidence suggests most Libertarians are just as socially liberal as Democrats, but they tend to despise Democrats and think Republicans are the lesser evil. To the extent a lot of them, uh, vote Republican, or even join the party outright.
Also, all of the testosterone and estrogen articles stated at least one of 1) the hormones increase in response to social power/dominance competitions and increase yet further when you
win, and 2) the hormones make you more conservative. Again.
If you can't infer that
maybe showing multiple cases and multiple reasons for advantage = conservative should give pause to the unsupported assertion that the partisanship of judges is entirely deliberate (
despite that the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are), then I might need to link you the article about highly intelligent people failing basic math when it contradicts their beliefs again.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 03:21:13 PM
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
We haven't spoken in over 7 years because she equates atheism with alcoholism and demands that I attend church as a prerequisite for visiting.
Also, irrelevant -- although I'm getting used to that from you. The fact is, you made your initial assertion
without any fucking evidence, and then reiterated it
without any fucking evidence when presented with evidence to the contrary of your assertion.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 03:21:13 PM
Anyway.
"On economic issues!"
Not only did I mention that in the first place (I guess you just forgot?), but also economic issues are more important to partisan affiliation. Actually, if you look at Libertarians, you can see this--all evidence suggests most Libertarians are just as socially liberal as Democrats, but they tend to despise Democrats and think Republicans are the lesser evil. To the extent a lot of them, uh, vote Republican, or even join the party outright.
No, in fact, you did not:
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
It's unfortunate, but any Supreme Court is sort of a threat to progressive ideals. Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
No subconscious motivation to share or play nice if you hold almost all the cards already.
That was your entire post -- I have made no redactions of any sort. No mention of economic issues or party affiliation,
just judicial power.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Also, all of the testosterone and estrogen articles stated at least one of 1) the hormones increase in response to social power/dominance competitions and increase yet further when you win, and 2) the hormones make you more conservative. Again.
Which has fuck-all to do with your assertion about judges unless you can point to a study that connects them.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
If you can't infer that maybe showing multiple cases and multiple reasons for advantage = conservative should give pause to the unsupported assertion that the partisanship of judges is entirely deliberate (despite that the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are), then I might need to link you the article about highly intelligent people failing basic math when it contradicts their beliefs again.
"Maybe" doesn't mean "is". You are positing a connection without any study showing the connection exists. There is a difference between 'assert' and 'demonstrate'. No doubt this comes as a surprise to you.
And,
quelle surprise, another bald assertion without data ("the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are"), and an
ad hominem.
Quote from: trdsf on January 17, 2018, 04:00:03 PM
an ad hominem.
How about this one, you fucking manchild.
You started spewing curses at me unprovoked, you fucking bet I'm going to react.
Learn some fucking civility and get your fucking testicles out of the goddamn equation and maybe we can have a motherfucking conversation.
Or would you prefer to scream incoherently at me some more because I don't fucking agree with every bullshit ideal you hold precious?
And yeah, count our fucking presidents, it turns out they're not exactly uniformly fucking Republican.
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 04:11:16 PM
How about this one, you fucking manchild.
You started spewing curses at me unprovoked, you fucking bet I'm going to react.
Learn some fucking civility and get your fucking testicles out of the goddamn equation and maybe we can have a motherfucking conversation.
Or would you prefer to scream incoherently at me some more because I don't fucking agree with every bullshit ideal you hold precious?
And yeah, count our fucking presidents, it turns out they're not exactly uniformly fucking Republican.
None of our Presidents were Che, so they are all Hitler ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2018, 06:28:04 PM
None of our Presidents were Che, so they are all Hitler ;-)
I refuse to believe that my PM, Justin, is not the bastard son of Che.
Left is Justin's supposed father, Pierre. Middle is Justin. Right is Che.
(http://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/OZK3Q8v3O3GShVubeYc4t8k15wDO8XnSZdH4mgMMQ3qfXEicqKAgrC2KticytpDJzFCEhxiaBNast1KibSsKeYR77A/0?wx_fmt=jpeg)
Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 02:49:42 PM
Eh, did I do something wrong?
If so, I'd love to hear about it. I do worry I'm a bit too committed to the "everyone is wrong" path and discarding things even when they're right.
(Though I wonder why justices become more leftist over time... Decreasing psychological salience of the successful rise to power over time spent in a position where power is held for life once gained? There's good evidence that lack of competition facilitates fairer treatment of people, so sitting on a bench where the only way off is to retire or die would probably be a good treatment for competitive anti-outgroup bias...)
I think you are both either projecting what you fear or what you hope for. Hence the emotionalism and pseudo psychology. Did anyone ever psychoanalyze Scalia? Didn't think so. Actual history says, the decisions lean toward conservative, relative to the avant guard opinion of the day. That result is what the Founders intended ... all the action is in the House, the Senate is a nod to the States, the White House has to execute the will of Congress (not the President being a god-ling). The courts are the ... hold up now, that is inconsistent with prior precedent!
Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 12:36:39 PM
Gerrymandering had nothing to do with that, it was the Electoral College -- although one could make a case that the Electoral College represents a sort of national gerrymandering, I suppose.
Gerrymandering is what keeps the GOP in power in the House, and yes, that very much needs to be rooted out. I just wish I felt better about the current Supreme Court tackling it.
Gerrymandering IS what warps the Electoral College. The Gerrymandered districts control the State legislatures and that's what is measured in the Electoral College.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 05:30:46 AM
Gerrymandering IS what warps the Electoral College. The Gerrymandered districts control the State legislatures and that's what is measured in the Electoral College.
No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state. It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 09:32:12 AM
No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state. It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.
I deeply regret saying that you are in error. I respect you very much.
The Electoral College is number of House and Senate seats assigned to each State. The States are divided into Representative Districts. Each State has 2 Senators but varying numbers of Representatives.
The Gerrymandering does not affect Senators, being fixed at 2 per State. Gerrymandering affects Representatives. And The Electoral College mostly counts those Representatives.
It is the lines of the Representative Districts where all the problems exist. I wish I could post a picture... The gist is that a 60-40 State can be divided up for the 60% party to win all districts, just more than half, or none. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.b063b467189d)
Sorry for the long link.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 10:20:13 AM
I deeply regret saying that you are in error. I respect you very much.
The Electoral College is number of House and Senate seats assigned to each State. The States are divided into Representative Districts. Each State has 2 Senators but varying numbers of Representatives.
The Gerrymandering does not affect Senators, being fixed at 2 per State. Gerrymandering affects Representatives. And The Electoral College mostly counts those Representatives.
It is the lines of the Representative Districts where all the problems exist. I wish I could post a picture... The gist is that a 60-40 State can be divided up for the 60% party to win all districts, just more than half, or none. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.b063b467189d)
Sorry for the long link.
I think we might be talking past each other.
The borders of the districts have nothing to do with to whom the Electoral College votes are assigned, with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska. Gerrymandering affects who gets sent to the House; the Electoral College is simply a total count of the number of House seats assigned to the state, plus two.
For example, in Washington State, Hillary won seven Congressional districts and The Creature won three, but Hillary was awarded all twelve EVs for that state. Himself won 14 districts in Florida and Hillary won 13, but they didn't split those evenly, The Creature got all 29 EVs. He won 6 of Virginia's districts and Hillary won five... but she won the state because the only thing that counts (again, outside of NE and ME) is the total statewide count. The actual construction of the districts is not relevant to the Electoral College.
At the federal level, gerrymandering threatens the House, not the Presidency. It gives you situations where Democrats statewide win 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but only 5 of the 18 representatives. And it desperately needs to be addressed.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 09:32:12 AM
No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state. It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.
A parliamentary system with proportional representation, would be more ... representative. There would be more Greens and Libertarians in office.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 12:59:22 PM
I think we might be talking past each other.
The borders of the districts have nothing to do with to whom the Electoral College votes are assigned, with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska. Gerrymandering affects who gets sent to the House; the Electoral College is simply a total count of the number of House seats assigned to the state, plus two.
For example, in Washington State, Hillary won seven Congressional districts and The Creature won three, but Hillary was awarded all twelve EVs for that state. Himself won 14 districts in Florida and Hillary won 13, but they didn't split those evenly, The Creature got all 29 EVs. He won 6 of Virginia's districts and Hillary won five... but she won the state because the only thing that counts (again, outside of NE and ME) is the total statewide count. The actual construction of the districts is not relevant to the Electoral College.
At the federal level, gerrymandering threatens the House, not the Presidency. It gives you situations where Democrats statewide win 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but only 5 of the 18 representatives. And it desperately needs to be addressed.
Well yes, you're right in the practical results. But my point is that the gerrymandering decides who the State electors are to begin with. My apologies for not going into the weeds about that.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 01:52:30 PM
Well yes, you're right in the practical results. But my point is that the gerrymandering decides who the State electors are to begin with. My apologies for not going into the weeds about that.
Most electoral college delegates are chosen at-large at each party's state convention; the rules vary from state to state (http://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2017-08/research-state-laws-pres-electors-nov16.pdf) -- I glanced over it quickly and the only one I spotted that even requires electors to be chosen one from each Congressional district is Tennessee, and again, all parties qualified on that state's ballot will send a full slate to the Secretary of State, not just the majority party of that district. On the other hand, if the Ohio' Democrats or Republicans or Greens wanted to, there's nothing in state law preventing either of them from selecting a list of 18 Columbusites, or 18 Toledoans, or 18 Wapakonetans. Generally speaking, the party chooses party members
So even the reddest of red districts will be "represented" by a blue elector if a Democrat carries their state, if they have the winner-take-all system, just like even though my district has been gerrymandered extremely blue, since Himself carried the state and my district, "my" elector cast his ballot for The Creature. The structure of the individual districts doesn't matter, just the overall count of them.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
Most electoral college delegates are chosen at-large at each party's state convention; the rules vary from state to state (http://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2017-08/research-state-laws-pres-electors-nov16.pdf) -- I glanced over it quickly and the only one I spotted that even requires electors to be chosen one from each Congressional district is Tennessee, and again, all parties qualified on that state's ballot will send a full slate to the Secretary of State, not just the majority party of that district. On the other hand, if the Ohio' Democrats or Republicans or Greens wanted to, there's nothing in state law preventing either of them from selecting a list of 18 Columbusites, or 18 Toledoans, or 18 Wapakonetans. Generally speaking, the party chooses party members
So even the reddest of red districts will be "represented" by a blue elector if a Democrat carries their state, if they have the winner-take-all system, just like even though my district has been gerrymandered extremely blue, since Himself carried the state and my district, "my" elector cast his ballot for The Creature. The structure of the individual districts doesn't matter, just the overall count of them.
But, but, but... don't we vote for the Electors? From our representaives districts?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 03:02:50 PM
But, but, but... don't we vote for the Electors? From our representaives districts?
No, outside of Maine and Nebraska, you're effectively voting for the entire statewide slate.
Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
No, outside of Maine and Nebraska, you're effectively voting for the entire statewide slate.
I suspect they didn't quite explain this well in my political science classes...
I have to think about this.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
I suspect they didn't quite explain this well in my political science classes...
I have to think about this.
None of this takes away from your points about gerrymandering itself; it just works on a different branch of government.
Now, there's a good point to be made that the Electoral College itself is a form of gerrymandering. When I get home, I'll find the numbers I ran on it. Essentially, a hell of a free ride is built in for the GOP.
Ah, excellent, I found my writeup on the Electoral College that I did on another forum (knitting, of all things):
Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs and color code them appropriately along the red-state/blue-state divide: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.
And we’re not.
The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.
So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million.
And for that 39.3 million population, these states get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million. Out of those, 53 EVs are reliably Republican-leaning, 20 swing, and 22 are reliably Democratic. So much for the "advantage" Democrats supposedly have. The Republicans have as much in their pocket already and a fair chance at another 20 EVs on far less population than that one reliably blue state.
The less-populated states have drastically higher vote value. North and South Dakota together cast a total of about 714000 votes in the last Presidential election among all candidates, and between both states awarded 6 EVs. New Hampshire cast 744000 votes for all candidates -- more than those two states combined -- and awarded only 4 EVs. Nevada awarded 6EVs for 1.125 million votes; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota between them cast 1.289 million ballots... and awarded 12 EVs total.
This is the tyranny of the minority. And before anyone mentions that the 12 largest states could between them decide an election, remember that only happens if you get a candidate that pleases both Texas and California and Georgia and New York and Florida and Illinois and North Carolina and New Jersey and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan. Highly unlikely -- the last few times it happened, it was Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, and Roosevelt in '36 (Johnson didn't carry Georgia in '64) -- all unusual years under unusual circumstances.
National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.
Quote from: trdsf on January 19, 2018, 04:35:37 PM
Ah, excellent, I found my writeup on the Electoral College that I did on another forum (knitting, of all things):
Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs and color code them appropriately along the red-state/blue-state divide: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.
And we’re not.
The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.
So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million.
And for that 39.3 million population, these states get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million. Out of those, 53 EVs are reliably Republican-leaning, 20 swing, and 22 are reliably Democratic. So much for the "advantage" Democrats supposedly have. The Republicans have as much in their pocket already and a fair chance at another 20 EVs on far less population than that one reliably blue state.
The less-populated states have drastically higher vote value. North and South Dakota together cast a total of about 714000 votes in the last Presidential election among all candidates, and between both states awarded 6 EVs. New Hampshire cast 744000 votes for all candidates -- more than those two states combined -- and awarded only 4 EVs. Nevada awarded 6EVs for 1.125 million votes; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota between them cast 1.289 million ballots... and awarded 12 EVs total.
This is the tyranny of the minority. And before anyone mentions that the 12 largest states could between them decide an election, remember that only happens if you get a candidate that pleases both Texas and California and Georgia and New York and Florida and Illinois and North Carolina and New Jersey and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan. Highly unlikely -- the last few times it happened, it was Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, and Roosevelt in '36 (Johnson didn't carry Georgia in '64) -- all unusual years under unusual circumstances.
National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.
Well, that's what I was TRYING to explain. And thank you for the better discussion of it.
Following up on the discussion of gerrymandering, I see that FiveThirtyEight has an interactive redistricting atlas (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/). Interesting to play with.
Quote from: trdsf on January 25, 2018, 10:43:52 AM
Following up on the discussion of gerrymandering, I see that FiveThirtyEight has an interactive redistricting atlas (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/). Interesting to play with.
I looked at the maps and went highly in favor of highly competitive districts. That would drag both parties kicking and screaming toward the center.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 04:27:59 AM
I looked at the maps and went highly in favor of highly competitive districts. That would drag both parties kicking and screaming toward the center.
My preferred map was the one that best reflected the electorate, although the competitive one was my second choice. The competitive one is too easily swung by a one-off event or an overload of outside spending; like the highly competitive map, the partisan makeup map also starts off both parties nearly at par with each other but with two significant differences. First, it takes into account the known voting patterns of the state; and second, with fewer highly competitive seats it's less sensitive to how much the Koch brothers
et al. feel like spending that year or to external one-off events. And it makes events like the 2012 Pennsylvania Congressional elections, where the Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote but ended up getting only 5 of the 18 seats, almost impossible.
I think the (R)'s will always win the 'gerrymandering' fight. Districts are segmented according to a combination of two variables, population and area control. (D)'s and (R)'s are approximately equal with respect to population, meaning that variable isn't really dominated that much by either. The (R)'s on the other hand have a massive advantage in area control, since (D)'s don't farm. A victory in one important variable vs a tie in another means a win for the (R)'s.
This is balanced out by the fact that (D)'s are congregated in cities, meaning that they have a lot more opportunities to conspire against everyone else. So it's basically really a war between the politics of a Republic and the politics of an oligarchy. Or a theocracy, if the hilarity at Evergreen State College is any indication.
Quote
Last week, my colleague Nate Silver used census data to show that education, not income, determined the shift from Republican to Democratic votes in the 2016 election. It turns out that the exit polls can also help us confirm and expand that thesis.
Correlation =/= Causation.
Quote from: trdsf on January 27, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
My preferred map was the one that best reflected the electorate, although the competitive one was my second choice. The competitive one is too easily swung by a one-off event or an overload of outside spending; like the highly competitive map, the partisan makeup map also starts off both parties nearly at par with each other but with two significant differences. First, it takes into account the known voting patterns of the state; and second, with fewer highly competitive seats it's less sensitive to how much the Koch brothers et al. feel like spending that year or to external one-off events. And it makes events like the 2012 Pennsylvania Congressional elections, where the Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote but ended up getting only 5 of the 18 seats, almost impossible.
A districting map that reflects overall state votes in House seats is the best. The problem is how to achieve that.
The ideal (in my view) would be that every house district be competitive. Next best would be that some slightly arranged districts also reflect statewide votes, but that would require constant fine-tuning.
As I see it, a major part of our electoral problems are that entire States have gone over to one party or the other, and no competitive redisctricting is possible. We are going beyond States in partisanship into Regionalism.
I can't think of any way to balance that short of civil war part 2. And since that is pretty unlikely, we are faced with each side trying to beat the other into utter submission.
Personally, I think it is time for "Radical Moderatism".
Things will be uniform, when every political office is held by Republicans ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 12:41:43 PM
Things will be uniform, when every political office is held by Republicans ;-)
Germany, 1936...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
Germany, 1936...
Things will be uniform, when every political office is held by Democrats ;-)
Russia, 1936 ...
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 06:35:25 PM
Things will be uniform, when every political office is held by Democrats ;-)
Russia, 1936 ...
I desire a competitive political democracy, not a uniformly controlled government by one party or the other.
My State has gerrymandered congressional districts to the benefit of the party I usually support. I have written to my Representatives objecting to that. I want competitive districts everywhere. And the courts are turning their attention to that (finally). Let it end.
So ... you are retired. Why aren't you spending all your wealth, getting elected? If you don't get elected, you can't do anything, even any improvement.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:03:53 AM
So ... you are retired. Why aren't you spending all your wealth, getting elected? If you don't get elected, you can't do anything, even any improvement.
I considered politics (remember, Poly Sci major?) but I was wretched at the game. Best I ever managed was Dorm President and Senator-At-Large for the 3 dorm complex at U of MD. That wasn't bad, but I discovered I was too honest. Besides, who would elect an atheist?
And you are assuming that elected officials are the true power source.
Unless you folks all want to crowdfund me...
Ah ... so irony ... the first thing you do, like Trump, is ask for more money? Not voting for you. Sell yourself on the issues, then people will vote for you. The problem isn't that you aren't clever, it is that you take no cognizance of where the public wants to go on the issues (preaching to the choir ... did you support Bernie?). No amount of obfuscation would stop an actual winner.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:12:23 AM
Ah ... so irony ... the first thing you do, like Trump, is ask for more money? Not voting for you. Sell yourself on the issues, then people will vote for you. The problem isn't that you aren't clever, it is that you take no cognizance of where the public wants to go on the issues (preaching to the choir ... did you support Bernie?). No amount of obfuscation would stop an actual winner.
I support professionals who know how govt works. But less of the cynical power-grabbing. I'm the city-manager type.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 07:15:02 AM
I support professionals who know how govt works. But less of the cynical power-grabbing. I'm the city-manager type.
You and I are e-coli in the gut of the government. We aren't leaders. You support fellow e-coli ... well that isn't supporting leaders. If anyone actually presented a reasonable vision I would vote for them. Wrong species.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:18:53 AM
You and I are e-coli in the gut of the government. We aren't leaders. You support fellow e-coli ... well that isn't supporting leaders. If anyone actually presented a reasonable vision I would vote for them. Wrong species.
My political leaders were Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Charles Percy, Mike Hatfield et al. I'm too tired to think of the others. Thoughtful managers who agreed in the center to keep things working...
Chaos Capitalism is new ... it says that we can make money on volatility, not fundamentals. That is because of the self destructive financial markets.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:33:22 AM
Chaos Capitalism is new ... it says that we can make money on volatility, not fundamentals. That is because of the self destructive financial markets.
I missed converting everything to securities BY ONE WEEK! So I'll wait again a few years...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 07:39:48 AM
I missed converting everything to securities BY ONE WEEK! So I'll wait again a few years...
There is no security in securities! It's a trap! ... says crawfish admiral.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:41:12 AM
There is no security in securities! It's a trap! ... says crawfish admiral.
My securities gained 3% while the stocks tanked. How have you been doing?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 07:46:17 AM
My securities gained 3% while the stocks tanked. How have you been doing?
I don't invest. If I had any money, it would be far safer under my mattress. My attack cats protect it.
Thanks to the Fed, anything that makes better than 1% interest, since 2008 is wild speculation. Public pensions, based on pre-2008 estimated average 8% interest are Potemkin villages a long time now. Read up on the Dallas Police pension ... the rats are jumping ship. The budget overrun and banking bailouts have been funded by ... stealth draining pensions, CDs etc. In 2008-2009 ... the US kited a 14 trillion dollar check, and you and I get to pay for it.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 12:35:34 PM
I don't invest. If I had any money, it would be far safer under my mattress. My attack cats protect it.
Thanks to the Fed, anything that makes better than 1% interest, since 2008 is wild speculation. Public pensions, based on pre-2008 estimated average 8% interest are Potemkin villages a long time now. Read up on the Dallas Police pension ... the rats are jumping ship. The budget overrun and banking bailouts have been funded by ... stealth draining pensions, CDs etc. In 2008-2009 ... the US kited a 14 trillion dollar check, and you and I get to pay for it.
Lost $40K today. But it will come back. Only the suckers are bailing out now.
But it was never money I actually had to begin with. Stock money is all hypothetical until you sell. By 2016 standards, I am WAY up...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 09, 2018, 02:40:15 AM
Lost $40K today. But it will come back. Only the suckers are bailing out now.
But it was never money I actually had to begin with. Stock money is all hypothetical until you sell. By 2016 standards, I am WAY up...
Correct. But sorry for your paper loses anyway. I have compassion, even for speculators ... not just investors like you.
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2018, 07:00:54 AM
Correct. But sorry for your paper loses anyway. I have compassion, even for speculators ... not just investors like you.
It's the day traders I smile at. The market goes down and they panic-sell. Then it goes up a little and they are afraid to miss a high point. Then down and they sell and up and they buy.
That's why I gain just holding on to my manicles and waiting out the volativity. LOL!
Usually ignoring volatility is wise, and trying to chase tops and bottoms is a fools game.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 02:42:00 AM
It's the day traders I smile at. The market goes down and they panic-sell. Then it goes up a little and they are afraid to miss a high point. Then down and they sell and up and they buy.
That's why I gain just holding on to my manicles and waiting out the volativity. LOL!
S'truth. The best investment strategy is patience.
Unfortunately, for much of the business world, 'long-term' means thinking about lunch when it's already 10:30 in the morning. Also, they'd rather make a nickel right now than a dollar tomorrow.
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2018, 09:20:52 AM
S'truth. The best investment strategy is patience.
Unfortunately, for much of the business world, 'long-term' means thinking about lunch when it's already 10:30 in the morning. Also, they'd rather make a nickel right now than a dollar tomorrow.
I suspect (without proof) that the ups and downs by dedicated daily trader balance out AND THE PROGRAMS DONT ACTUALLY MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK MARKET OVERALL.
It moves by the totality of the owners usually. Not this month, though!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 02:42:00 AM
It's the day traders I smile at. The market goes down and they panic-sell. Then it goes up a little and they are afraid to miss a high point. Then down and they sell and up and they buy.
These traders are also the reason I support a transaction tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Securities_transaction_tax). Might cause them to stop and think first. And if it doesn't, well, if you can't fix stupid, you should at least hold them accountable for the mess they make.
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
These traders are also the reason I support a transaction tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Securities_transaction_tax). Might cause them to stop and think first. And if it doesn't, well, if you can't fix stupid, you should at least hold them accountable for the mess they make.
Yeah, but as a simple buyer and holder for decades, when I finally wanted to sell off for retirement assurity, I had to face capital gains for just shifting Vanguard stocks to Vanguard bonds and CDs. And trying to understand THOSE rules cost me $80K.
That doesn't seem right either.
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
you should at least hold them accountable for the mess they make.
Hold them accountable!? What a revolutionary concept!
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2018, 09:20:52 AM
S'truth. The best investment strategy is patience.
Unfortunately, for much of the business world, 'long-term' means thinking about lunch when it's already 10:30 in the morning. Also, they'd rather make a nickel right now than a dollar tomorrow.
Time value of money. Money is worth much more in the past, even than in the present. That is a good motivation to build a time machine.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 12:13:07 PM
Yeah, but as a simple buyer and holder for decades, when I finally wanted to sell off for retirement assurity, I had to face capital gains for just shifting Vanguard stocks to Vanguard bonds and CDs. And trying to understand THOSE rules cost me $80K.
That doesn't seem right either.
Blame the geniuses in Congress. Bad legislation for over 200 years now.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2018, 01:20:07 PM
Hold them accountable!? What a revolutionary concept!
I would be happy if legislators were held accountable, but the damn voters ...
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 01:23:47 PM
I would be happy if legislators were held accountable, but the damn voters ...
We don't need smarter politicians. They are too "smart" for their own damn good already. What we need are smarter voters. And it wouldn't take much "smarter" to make a real difference.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 13, 2018, 01:20:07 PM
Hold them accountable!? What a revolutionary concept!
What can I say, I was just thinking outside the box...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 12:13:07 PM
Yeah, but as a simple buyer and holder for decades, when I finally wanted to sell off for retirement assurity, I had to face capital gains for just shifting Vanguard stocks to Vanguard bonds and CDs. And trying to understand THOSE rules cost me $80K.
That doesn't seem right either.
Capital gains is a completely different animal from a transaction tax, though.
The transaction tax is generally very small individually, and only becomes large because of overall trade volume.
Belgium, for example, has a transaction tax of 0.27% with a cap of â,¬1,600 per transaction -- hardly onerous, since â,¬1,600 is 0.27% of nearly â,¬600,000. A â,¬60,000 transaction would have a tax of â,¬160; a â,¬6,000 trade a tax of â,¬16. France, on the other hand, does a transaction tax of 0.2% on stock purchases of French publicly traded companies with a market value over â,¬1 billion, presumably to not discourage investment in small cap companies. I can't find any way to consider that a hefty burden.
Quote from: trdsf on February 13, 2018, 03:38:57 PM
What can I say, I was just thinking outside the box...
If we could reduce gerrymandering, the voting box would work better...