Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

sporthenry

Members
  • Content Count

    9,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

624 Excellent

About sporthenry

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday December 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Philadelphia Eagles

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well which Medicare for All are we talking? Where everyone is guaranteed at least minimum coverage? Or single payer, no private insurers, we’re all on the same system? If it’s the latter, why should everyone have the same plan? That is pure socialism at its core in perhaps the most important aspect of life. So you’re going to tell people they have to pay more into a system but their quality of care will be the same? I could make comparisons to other parts of life where this would seem absurd.
  2. “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
  3. You didn’t respond to the article. Telling.
  4. The media also had a huge helping hand. Just the same way they gave Trump a megaphone, they also give her one. Bug surprise, the self proclaimed socialist is backing a self proclaimed socialist. I hope she fades to the background or maybe she’ll just hang on as the new Bernie. Crazy ideas but minimal legislation history.
  5. For all the heat the NBA got and while Silvers initial response was a bit lacking, I actually give the league itself a ton of credit. It cost them billions and they won’t budge. For how important China is for a lot of our MNCs, I’m not sure Apple, Qualcomm, Dell or Boeing would be this willing to stand up to China. So for whatever you say about this league, I hope your criticism also extends to our bastions of capitalism.
  6. So then what is your suggestion? I'm not being snark, you are one of the more knowledgeable people here especially on these topics but it is much easier to play devil's advocate in this topic. Do you think the status quo is working? Or do you think wealth inequality threatens the republic? I am a capitalist but I fear the retribution, some of which we are seeing, if this continues. Now I don't deny the US has a balance sheet problem and the liabilities side probably needs more addressing but the asset side must also be addressed. Trump's tax cuts didn't help that but I think we need to increase revenue while also lower spending. Now when the richest 400 Americans are worth $2.96T and the US deficit is a $1T per year, you can only fund the government for 3-years by taking all their money. But as automation continues and more value accrues to the capital holders, the government safety net will also likely be increased.
  7. Hmm, aren't we cracking down on false posts? I'm not sure how this isn't dishonest.
  8. The precedent they are setting is going to be awesome to watch when the shoe is on the other foot. But I'm sure they'll be able to wiggle out of it and find some reason it is different this time given their lack of a backbone.
  9. Late to the party but interesting thoughts. I guess I always attacked it as we need to increase the wealthy's marginal propensity to consume which would stimulate the economy and then you'd see the trickle down. And hopefully the increased consumption by the wealthy would allow for the less wealthy to increase their propensity to save. In my opinion, the biggest factor to this wealth inequality is unequal capital. So I think there has to be a way to redistribute the capital. It is also why I'm in favor of an estate tax of some sort. And not to take a page out of Obama but it is true that most billionaires have benefited from the US in terms of intellectual capital, infrastructure, etc. I don't think the current system accurately reflects that. But I also recognize if you just put in a wealth tax, you'll just drive people away. You've seen it in NYC and NJ with Icahn just leaving or Tepper leaving before. I think a race to 0% taxes is bad. So I think it would require a system that doesn't necessarily impact startups in the beginning but perhaps some sort of escalating tax that takes into account success? But it can't just be an after-the fact tax because then you'll just see them leave. In essence, the US government would be like a seed investor in the companies. I recognize some might elect to start their businesses elsewhere but clearly the US has one of the best environments for this so I think there is a fine line to walk there.
  10. If they do continue, it's probably bad. Best case you get an October cut and that's it. If the Fed sees the need for further cuts, then the economy likely rolled over. In some ways, the Fed will provide some support but I wouldn't be going long at this point betting on the Fed. But you can't short the market for the same reason.
  11. Living up to your username? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trump-fool-us-middle-east/600010/
  12. Honestly, anyone who continues to support Trump after this is beyond trying to talk to or help. I imagine that’s why they’ve mostly disappeared so I give them credit for that than trying to defend that behavior. Hypocrisy at its finest.
  13. Have you read the Yale article about it? It lays the argument out better than I ever could. I’m not suggesting breaking up Amazon either, I just think we need to redefine how we look at monopolies and anti-competitive behavior. I don’t want to punish Google for being so big and successful that they can’t buy anyone again but rather watch their competitive practices more. Instead, we block deals like Staples and Office Depot on archaic standards. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
  14. Have you read about Diapers.com? There does come a certain point where these companies get to a certain size and dominate the market so much that they are essentially anti-competitive. I guess to your point, Amazon’s been mostly consumer friendly and competitor or even supplier unfriendly. But eventually, I think people worry they’ll use their pricing power when they run everyone else out of business.
  15. I would agree but this also requires running a candidate against him that neutralizes the economy. I think the issues that got Trump elected in terms of job displacement and wage stagnation still exist and he didn’t do a good job of addressing them. But putting a socialist on the ticket isn’t going to flip PA or MI. At that point, you’re just hoping he does something really dumb in the few weeks leading up to the election. If Warren wins the nomination, in my opinion the election becomes about healthcare and the view on the economy. Again, I don’t think the way you win back the Midwest is by pushing socialized healthcare. And unless she comes back more to the center on her economic plans, I’d say the same thing. She calls herself a capitalist and used to say some reasonable things but she’s gone a bit overboard on all that.