Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
TPP axed
Comments
-
Please try and be funny againTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Sounds like Trump's kind of country.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
-
Again?CuntWaffle said:
Please try and be funny againTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Sounds like Trump's kind of country.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
-
-
Demonstrably not trueThomasFremont said:
So does America.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
HTH -
It's not as bad as Mexico, but it's worse than peer countries.RaceBannon said:
Demonstrably not trueThomasFremont said:
So does America.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
HTH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
-
Thank you minion. I was right.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's not as bad as Mexico, but it's worse than peer countries.RaceBannon said:
Demonstrably not trueThomasFremont said:
So does America.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
HTH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality -
Beat Morocco, nothing else matters.RaceBannon said:
Thank you minion. I was right.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's not as bad as Mexico, but it's worse than peer countries.RaceBannon said:
Demonstrably not trueThomasFremont said:
So does America.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
HTH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality -
America has a higher end for more people. We also have a lot more losers.
-
So...you agree now?RaceBannon said:America has a higher end for more people. We also have a lot more losers.
-
Agree with myself? Yes. I was right.UWhuskytskeet said:
So...you agree now?RaceBannon said:America has a higher end for more people. We also have a lot more losers.
-
This appears to be a classic example of "inficient markets" lacking competitiveness.
-
*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality. -
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics? -
-
Fuck that!!!! I want to enforce the rule of law and have my lobster dinner for $7.11UWhuskytskeet said:
I don't disagree, wealth inequality is definitely one of their many problems.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
I'd just rather see a stronger Mexican economy. There is a reason why we aren't really concerned with illegal Canadian immigration.
In other words Abundance mother fucker. -
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
I'm not sure which totalitarian regime you are referencing, but most had way worse income inequality than the US does. I'm not sure you even know what the metric is.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard? -
Heche en Mejico
When dynamiting fish goes bad.salemcoog said: -
Once again you're missing the point and conflating issues. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, rhetorical question.2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
OK. What's the point then? Show me the way.Southerndawg said:
Once again you're missing the point and conflating issues. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, rhetorical question.2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
Put it in context with what southern dog said.TurdBuffer said:
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump. -
Really? Because you sound dirt poor.2001400ex said:
Put it in context with what southern dog said.TurdBuffer said:
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump.
-
I am. But yes really. Well it depends actually. I'm in the 25% tax bracket now. There is a small slice of that bracket that's projected to get an increase. It really depends on exactly how he changes brackets and deductions.TurdBuffer said:
Really? Because you sound dirt poor.2001400ex said:
Put it in context with what southern dog said.TurdBuffer said:
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump. -
But still?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Mexico isn't part of the TPP.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
like mexico?TierbsHsotBoobs said:I'm not surprised that @Fire_Marshall_Bill is scared of quality opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States of America and Vietnam.
The finalized proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations. It currently cannot be ratified due to U.S. withdrawal from the agreement on 23 January 2017. The former Obama administration claimed that the agreement aimed to "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in the signatories' countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections."[6] The TPP contains measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade,[7] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.[6][8]
The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of countries participating in the negotiations to twelve. Current trade agreements between participating countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or provide greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[9] The Obama administration considered the TPP a companion agreement to the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.[10]
Participating nations aimed at completing negotiations in 2012, but the process was prolonged by disagreements over contentious issues, including agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments.[11] A final agreement was signed on 5 October 2015, and then awaited ratification by the signatories.[12][13] The treaty was made public on 5 November 2015.[14] CNN called it "the largest proposed free trade deal in history".[15] On 20 November 2016, Singapore declared that they would amend legislation to bring the TPP into effect.[16] On 21 November 2016, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump announced that he planned to withdraw the United States from the TPP after he took office; on 23 January 2017, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw.[5]
Mainstream economic analyses by the U.S. International Trade Commission,[17] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories, while a heterodox economic analysis by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would adversely affect the signatories. -
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm not sure which totalitarian regime you are referencing, but most had way worse income inequality than the US does. I'm not sure you even know what the metric is.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard? -
TMI. This thread's deliverance has screeched to a halt.
-
When is Trump going to deregulate the banks with an executive order? They've been handcuffed for almost 8 years now. When they're allowed to go back to margin their accounts 40X-50X like they used to, the stock market and housing prices will rocket!
