Tariffs - the most beautiful word in the dictionary

[Seattle]

That is worse than a society where most people have jobs and can save - and do.


Nope. I am suggesting that it's easy to say that everyone should be successful as you were, even though they did not have the advantages you did.

It's easy but I didn't say that.

40% of the population don't have spina bifita. People with varying degrees of it can work and be productive. Does a doctor with spina bifita need to be poor? While we are playing this game, how about Helen Keller? She was productive
There are polls, just like the no savings polls, that show people making over $100k still live paycheck to paycheck. Should the government send all these people more money? Maybe they should just learn to save?

A small percentage of any society needs help, not 40%.

Get the debt to GDP ratio below 50% and the two political parties can spend money however they like, even if it is not productive. Until then, spending and debt is the problem. Most people who are poor (statistically, relatively poor) can help themselves more than the government can.

 

[billvon]

40% of the population don't have spina bifita. People with varying degrees of it can work and be productive. Does a doctor with spina bifita need to be poor? While we are playing this game, how about Helen Keller? She was productive

Do you think that you had the same sorts of difficulties and issues making it in society that Helen Keller did?

Your privileges that come from your birth don't determine your future - but they do determine the odds that you will get to some goal (like being able to save for emergencies.)

Maybe they should just learn to save?

Great idea! But that would mean government spending on financial literacy courses.

Get the debt to GDP ratio below 50%

Given that you regularly vote for the party that increases spending and reduces taxes - I'll let you take the first step there. Complaining about a problem while working to make it worse is not notably productive.

 

[parmalee]

There are polls, just like the no savings polls, that show people making over $100k still live paycheck to paycheck. Should the government send all these people more money? Maybe they should just learn to save?

A small percentage of any society needs help, not 40%.

50 percent of US households--roughly 2.5 people--have total incomes less than 80 thousand dollars. Where would you suggest that they try to reduce their expenditures so that they can save and invest?

 

[Seattle]

Do you think that you had the same sorts of difficulties and issues making it in society that Helen Keller did?

Your privileges that come from your birth don't determine your future - but they do determine the odds that you will get to some goal (like being able to save for emergencies.)

I grew up in a small house in a small town, my father died when I was 3. Some had it easier and some hard it harder. That's life.

Great idea! But that would mean government spending on financial literacy courses.

The government doesn't need to spend money on financial literacy courses. You treat the poor as if they can't function without your help. That's condescending.

Given that you regularly vote for the party that increases spending and reduces taxes - I'll let you take the first step there. Complaining about a problem while working to make it worse is not notably productive.

I don't vote. I don't work to make a problem worse. I'm not a Progressive.

 

[Seattle]

50 percent of US households--roughly 2.5 people--have total incomes less than 80 thousand dollars. Where would you suggest that they try to reduce their expenditures so that they can save and invest?

Anyone can and most do live within their means and 60% do save, of course. Would you suggest that the government just give someone money to bring them up to the median wealth or income? How do the 60% do it?

 

[parmalee]

The government doesn't need to spend money on financial literacy courses. You treat the poor as if they can't function without your help. That's condescending.

Weren't you just going on about how people lack financial literacy? How are they supposed to learn such if someone doesn't teach it?

 

[parmalee]

Anyone can and most do live within their means and 60% do save, of course.

We're talking about those with less than 80k, to support 2.5 people. Where should they reduce their expenditures?

 

[Seattle]

Weren't you just going on about how people lack financial literacy? How are they supposed to learn such if someone doesn't teach it?

Everyone has a brain. Everyone can read. I'm not opposed to public schools teaching it but people aren't helpless. Do you need a government program to tell you to live within your means and to save for a rainy day?

People did that long before the US government was a major factor in their lives.

 

[Seattle]

We're talking about those with less than 80k, to support 2.5 people. Where should they reduce their expenditures?

You are asking a silly question. Live within your means and save something. Are you arguing that $80k to support 2.5 people works out exactly with nothing left over? Can no one live on $75k?

 

[(Q)]

Can no one live on $75k?

In Boise Idaho, yes, in New York city, no.

 

[parmalee]

Everyone has a brain. Everyone can read. I'm not opposed to public schools teaching it but people aren't helpless. Do you need a government program to tell you to live within your means and to save for a rainy day?

People did that long before the US government was a major factor in their lives.

Depending upon who you ask, I may or may not have a genetic predisposition towards frugality. On 32k (80k / 2.5, that is) I could live like a king in NY or SF--but that's me. I've got unconventional notions about how a king should live and, like Liam Neeson, a particular set of skills. But that's all irrelevant, I wouldn't expect most people to embrace my way and neither would I expect everyone to know certain things and have certain skills esepcially suited for such.

We're talking about average people with less than 80k to support 2.5 people. They're living within their means, but they don't have the surplus to save or invest. Where would you suggest they makes cuts or adjustments in their expenditures?

 

[Seattle]

Depending upon who you ask, I may or may not have a genetic predisposition towards frugality. On 32k (80k / 2.5, that is) I could live like a king in NY or SF--but that's me. I've got unconventional notions about how a king should live and, like Liam Neeson, a particular set of skills. But that's all irrelevant, I wouldn't expect most people to embrace my way and neither would I expect everyone to know certain things and have certain skills esepcially suited for such.

We're talking about average people with less than 80k to support 2.5 people. They're living within their means, but they don't have the surplus to save or invest. Where would you suggest they makes cuts or adjustments in their expenditures?

Where ever they have to in order to have some savings. I've always done it at any salary. Save $25 a month. Get a cheaper apartment. Get a better job. If money is that tight, doing nothing isn't a plan.

 

[billvon]

I grew up in a small house in a small town, my father died when I was 3. Some had it easier and some hard it harder. That's life.

Indeed it is. If you had been born in different circumstances it would have been easier. If you had been born in others it would have been FAR harder. You have privileges that 90% of the people in the world did not have. That doesn't make you better or worse, it just gives you your starting point.

The government doesn't need to spend money on financial literacy courses.

OK then. So what is your solution?

You treat the poor as if they can't function without your help. That's condescending.

Sorry if you think so. They can do whatever they want without my help or advice. I would prefer to live in a world where they have easier pathways to become less poor. If you disagree, so be it.

I don't vote. I don't work to make a problem worse.

Nor better, apparently. I would suggest that if you decide to "check out" and not try to improve things, you do not have any right to complain that they are not improving.

I'm not a Progressive.

How fortunate, then, that you benefit from all the other people who were progressives. They did the work you did not care to do.

 

[billvon]

Everyone has a brain.

Well, everyone among the people we are discussing, yes.

Everyone can read.

Not true. 21% of Americans are functionally illiterate.

Do you need a government program to tell you to live within your means and to save for a rainy day?

It can be anyone at all. In the absence of any other source of education, yes, THEN you need the government to tell you.

People did that long before the US government was a major factor in their lives.

Yep. And back then we saw higher poverty rates, lower literacy rates and shorter lifetimes.

It would be awesome if someone other than the government was doing this. Unfortunately, that is usually not the case.

 

[Seattle]

Indeed it is. If you had been born in different circumstances it would have been easier. If you had been born in others it would have been FAR harder. You have privileges that 90% of the people in the world did not have. That doesn't make you better or worse, it just gives you your starting point.

Yes, people aren't equal. That's just nature and reality. Most animals don't die of old age.

Nor better, apparently. I would suggest that if you decide to "check out" and not try to improve things, you do not have any right to complain that they are not improving.

Voting isn't helping anything or anyone. Politicians are part of the problem.

How fortunate, then, that you benefit from all the other people who were progressives. They did the work you did not care to do.

Progressivism doesn't work and help anything. It generally makes things worse. Feelings aren't reality.

 

[Seattle]

Well, everyone among the people we are discussing, yes.


Not true. 21% of Americans are functionally illiterate.


It can be anyone at all. In the absence of any other source of education, yes, THEN you need the government to tell you.



Yep. And back then we saw higher poverty rates, lower literacy rates and shorter lifetimes.

It would be awesome if someone other than the government was doing this. Unfortunately, that is usually not the case.

Higher poverty rates and yet even they managed to save?

 

[Write4U]

The Trump tariff equivalence formula



hehe....

 

[Sarkus]

The Trump tariff equivalence formula

Yes, it's nonsense. He calls them reciprocal, but they are anything but, and simply based on trade deficit.
Interestingly, he's calculated the tariff based on entire trade deficit (services + goods) and then only applied tarrifs to the goods.

Whichever way you look at it, it's a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the US economy, and the world economy will suffer too. Only his MAGA faithful think that his plan will do what he claims, and the best others can come up with are the somewhat understated "it's a big risk".

Wake me up in 4 years when it's hopefully over.

 

[exchemist]

I find it loathsome to not understand reality. The problem isn't one is "disadvantage" and that's why they are making poor decisions. If you have a job, you should have some savings. If you are poor it is usually predominately your fault. How else's fault is it if one is poor?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how loathsome did the people of Houston find you to be?

About 3, I think. Most found me acceptable company, though some disliked my European attitudes and my advocacy of decriminalisaion of drugs and probably suspected me of communism. I found many of them charming, but quite a few disturbed me by expressing a jarring sense of the kind of complacent self-centredness, on the matter of the poor, that your attitude suggests. I suspect latent racism was at the back of some of it.

Society has both a duty in basic Christian charity and in fact a strong self-interest in taking the trouble to understand the circumstances of the poor and try to improve their lot. When you have disparities in wealth beyond a certain point you get a rise in crime, including violent crime. The "haves" live in constant fear of the "have-nots" and feel the need to wall themselves off in fortresses like the Omega Man, with guns to hand. That is a shit way to live. Almost no one lives like that in Europe but in the USA it is commonplace.

It is a myth to think there is anything resembling real equality of opportunity in most societies. The accidents of birth, race and circumstances of upbringing account for a great deal of how financially successful people become. Just ask yourself why so many of the poor in the USA are black. Does anybody really think it is a character flaw, or their own fault in some other way, that they are poor?

 

[parmalee]

Where ever they have to in order to have some savings. I've always done it at any salary. Save $25 a month. Get a cheaper apartment. Get a better job. If money is that tight, doing nothing isn't a plan.

You're the one who is obsessed with this subject. It just seems odd to me that you haven't really looked into it, otherwise you'd have some sort of opinion about where, specifically, people are prone to budget poorly. But I'll make it easy for you by providing a list of basic budget categories and you can tell me which areas you believe most people, who are not saving money, can feasibly make cuts to:

housing
transportation
groceries
healthcare
utilities
entertainment
other (crack, cigarettes, whores, etc.)

I've undoubtedly overlooked some important ones, but that's because I've honestly never made a budget in my life. I'm a cheap bastard and I can personally attest to the fact that even that has costs which might not be readily apparent to all: Some people find it fascinating, while others find it annoying and that incurs a social and societal price which, in some manner or another, translates into real financial costs. There's no simple calculus for this shit but you seem to act as though there is.