I disagree with you on that. I actually really value their contribution to society. I know that the real economy is really about the production of goods and services. I never had to hold a hammer to understand that we need people to bang some hammers. I'm just somebody who shuffles the money around and helps keep our medium of exchange in America. Somebody is going to exploit the inefficiencies in the financial markets. It's better that it's a fellow American than somebody from a more hostile country. Without people like me, there'd be a lot more money heading over to China.
I am officially running for POTUS as a Democrat in 2024
- Thread starter kmgilroy89
- Start date
Nope. This is where you get the fail horn...
Yes, you actually DO need to do the physical work, such as banging the hammer, to understand what they go through. What YOU are saying is what every other POTUS has been saying for the last century...(And Biden has brought it up a lot...)
"I understand the American worker! I know what they are going through!"
Every president has been saying that.
Biden in particular has been very specific about it, in a fucking retarded way...
"I grew up in Scranton! My dad worked in a coal mine. I know what real workers do, because my Dad did it, in Scranton!"
Meanwhile, he's been living in the Congress for 50 fucking years. The guy knows jack about physical work.
Sorry, dude.
Until you work the jackhammer, you cannot know what the workers who wield the jackhammers go through in life. Jack.
Well...I was a volunteer fireman for 5 years in high school/college. Nobody can hold every job in the economy. You eventually have to specialize in something to have some expertise. You don't want a jack of all trades suffering from the Dunn-Kruger effect. I think one of the more powerful assets a president could have is the ability to realize how little they know. I want to surround myself with as many brilliant minds as possible. There's a lot of people on here who claim to be genius economists. Hell, the profession of economist probably has the most Dunn-Krugers of them all. Psychologist is up there as well. That said, if we have a super logical POTUS, I believe we can get closer to optimization of societal production/maximum utility than we would otherwise.
Then you do not fit this mold of being a logically-minded president, because such a one would not even bring up the Dunn-Kruger thing in an argument, because the general population has no idea what that means or refers to.
You need to have a more well-rounded approach to the average citizen, and I believe I have that in spades.
People do not want a POTUS to be a genius economist...They just want less money taken out of their paycheck each week, they want more spending power, and they want the ability to live a comfortable life.
And one other comment on this point. My fellow Americans...
Doesn't my opponent's missive above sound a whole lot like...
He is IBM, and I am Apple.
He wants automatons, I want individuality.
Vote for me, it is the only individual choice you currently have.
They want more goods/services/assets. New and innovative. How is that achieved? We have to maximize the supply of those things. There needs to be a proper buying power distribution to incentivize that maximal point. Both government and the private sector have trade offs. There's a lack of incentives in the government, but in the private sector there's a lot of financial waste. There really is a lot to balance.
Individuals are important. I don't believe in completely centralizing every part of the economy. So much of our success has come from entrepreneurs. However, you also have to recognize the successes of well-run governments including the internet itself.
The internet is not a government in that sense. It is a private entity that is not controlled by a single body, but rather a conglomerate of groups that define the standards and rules it should run with, which are agreed to by private committees. No public funds are involved.
The same goes for a firm like Twitter. Elon Musk can do whatever he wants with his company, now that he owns it. He is an entrepreneur, yes? Let him do what he wants to do with it. Because, well, we have to, because he is the man of the castle. King of his hill. A#1. Top of the heap.
*sighs* Song...
I'm talking about the creation of the internet. A lot of our discoveries with the internet were provided through public funding. I disagree with the right-wing mantra that "government is always the problem". It's too simple-minded. The government could be used to break up monopolies, cut financial waste, handle natural monopolies, deal with externalities, and promote more equitable purchasing power (which you need to optimize production and will not necessarily be found through a basic labor supply/demand curve).
Are you arguing that the Internet came about because of DARPA, which was funded with public monies? I will grant you that, but all the innovations later that made the Internet what it is today did not happen because of government monies. It was private company innovations that made it what it is today.