Political Posts

[Red Lion]

5 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

IMO deflation over the past few decades is primarily due to the efficiencies of new technologies and resulting competition. 

I agree, and AI seems to be accelerating that trend. With services to start. 

 

13 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

I don't see it happening unless the US invest heavily in robotics and automation to compete against China's supply of still-cheaper labor. 

 

This is exactly what I see happening over the next couple decades. I think the new tax law provides large incentives for reshoring, labor is the missing piece of the puzzle, but AI is going through an exponential growth curve. All of the pieces are in place to see heavy investment into robotics with a favorable tax regime for growth CapEx.  

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

This is exactly what I see happening over the next couple decades. I think the new tax law provides large incentives for reshoring, labor is the missing piece of the puzzle, but AI is going through an exponential growth curve. All of the pieces are in place to see heavy investment into robotics with a favorable tax regime for growth CapEx.  

Totally. Can see increased wages, improving economy etc outweigh gross price increases if they occur, at least as expressed in purchasing power. 

[dealraker]

15 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Never…..quite….bold enough….to….engage…directly! 
 

nice 

Oh, it was direct. 

Just like your crybaby, colonizer, and all the rest LOL.

Edited August 13, 2025 by dealraker

[Gregmal]

7 minutes ago, dealraker said:

Oh, it was direct. 

Just like your crybaby, colonizer, and all the rest LOL.

Youre taking this wayyyyyyyyy tooooo seriously. 

 

Political quarreling should be little different than football where you go out there and beat up or get beat up and then should be able to go sit down after and have a beer. Nothing personal. But to each their own. 

Edited August 13, 2025 by Gregmal

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, Gregmal said:

Youre taking this wayyyyyyyyy tooooo seriously. 

 

Political quarreling should be little different than football where you go out there and beat up or get beat up and then should be able to go sit down after and have a beer. Nothing personal. But to each their own. 

I completely agree with this.  But when you call people morons and idiots and losers it turns from an ideological discussion to a personal one. And then everything goes to crap because now its personal.

[Gregmal]

12 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I completely agree with this.  But when you call people morons and idiots and losers it turns from an ideological discussion to a personal one. And then everything goes to crap because now its personal.

And theres words that carry the same weight on the other side as well. For instance I am pretty certain @73 Reds is the furthest thing from a "cult member"; something with a generally accepted connotation thats far worse than "moron" or "loser". I ve had reasonable dialogue with him over the years here....or @whiskybravo Ive met...definitely not a "cult member". But those sorta terms come out just the same. I dont think either(just using these as examples) are big fans of pedos or felons either. But that stuff is slung constantly. 

 

One of the funniest exchanges I witnessed recently was a few months ago two people(both members here) with probably polar opposite political views, whom have in fact sparred head to head in some of these threads....got together and had a great time at a restaurant...not having a clue each others handles.....internet quarrel should never be taken seriously. 

Edited August 13, 2025 by Gregmal

[73 Reds]

13 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

And theres words that carry the same weight on the other side as well. For instance I am pretty certain @73 Reds is the furthest thing from a "cult member"; something with a generally accepted connotation thats far worse than "moron" or "loser". I ve had reasonable dialogue with him over the years here....or @whiskybravo Ive met...definitely not a "cult member". But those sorta terms come out just the same. I dont think either(just using these as examples) are big fans of pedos or felons either. But that stuff is slung constantly. 

 

One of the funniest exchanges I witnessed recently was a few months ago two people(both members here) with probably polar opposite political views, whom have in fact sparred head to head in some of these threads....got together and had a great time at a restaurant...not having a clue each others handles.....internet quarrel should never be taken seriously. 

Having reconsidered the issue, I'll gladly accept "cult status" from the likes of @dwy000.

[cubsfan]

18 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

One of the funniest exchanges I witnessed recently was a few months ago two people(both members here) with probably polar opposite political views, whom have in fact sparred head to head in some of these threads....got together and had a great time at a restaurant...not having a clue each others handles.....internet quarrel should never be taken seriously. 

 

Completely, it's like the Red Sox vs the Yankees. Don't take it too seriously.

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Having reconsidered the issue, I'll gladly accept "cult status" from the likes of @dwy000.

Ive tried to reiterate many times that the "cult" status reflects the refusal or inability to independently support a position and solely taking it because the leader tells you to.  I'm happy to discuss issues and ideology all day long,  but if there's no basis for the position except Trump wants it, then its not a discussion worth having because one side is just a conduit.

[cubsfan]

5 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Ive tried to reiterate many times that the "cult" status reflects the refusal or inability to independently support a position and solely taking it because the leader tells you to.  I'm happy to discuss issues and ideology all day long,  but if there's no basis for the position except Trump wants it, then its not a discussion worth having because one side is just a conduit.

 

That's BS.  People can tell you all day long, it's policy not Trump that counts. 

You never want to hear it.

[cubsfan]

Like NYC - the exodus from California continues. 

 

And as @Gregmal mentions - losing just who you can't afford to lose - high income earners. 700,000 in a year.

 

https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/california-to-texas-moving-2025/

 

Who’s leaving California for Texas? Mostly high-earning millennials

Millennials are taking the lead in the migration from California to Texas, making up over 31% of all movers, according to recent data. They’re followed, at a considerable distance, by Gen Zers, who account for 20%, and Gen Xers, who represent nearly 15% of those relocating. Interestingly, across every generation except one, Californians moving to Texas tend to earn more than the national average for their age group, highlighting the financial advantage many bring with them.

[Cigarbutt]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Data to demonstrate that technology makes things more efficient and therefore cheaper to generate or produce?  Is anyone arguing against that point?    As for divisiveness in the US, there has always been differences between political parties, but they have become much more stark IMO due to big money being thrown at divisive issues by corrupt people and organizations with far from pure motives.

Concerning the polarization issue, i would offer the opinion that the propensity/capacity to entertain constructive discussions using facts, "data" and rational thought (not personal insults, condescension and other rhetorical strategies) is inversely correlated to the growing divisiveness "climate" that has been (and continue to be) playing out.

-----

Your conclusion:

"IMO deflation over the past few decades is primarily due to the efficiencies of new technologies and resulting competition."

1-Improved conditions for competition should result in lower corporate profit margins.

Data:

The data concerning rising corporate margins strongly suggests a move away from ideal competitive conditions.

2-If, in the last twenty years, it is suggested that widespread introduction and application of productive technology resulted in increased productivity, it should show up in numbers. It doesn't. Here's an example (among many others of good quality and reliability):

From Q2 1985 to Q2 2005, the productivity index rose by 57.4%.

From Q2 2005 to Q2 2025, the productivity index rose by 37.5%.

You may want to play with the time intervals and other references, but then, you are likely to find out that the US productivity profile has entered a decline since the mid 1970s.

Opinion: So there is strong evidence that your conclusion is wrong.

-----

It's interesting to remember that Mr. Buffett (in his landmark 1999 article on "markets") suggested that it would be unusual (paraphrasing here) to see a significant and durable rise in corporate margins because of the US secret sauce and because such rise in margins would inevitably lead to growing divisiveness.

[Gregmal]

Migration of millennials is really the tipping point. Yes, theres always been migration. In the Northeast where I lived my whole life(NYC suburb), it was a given mom and pop retired and moved to FL. If they had money they'd keep the place up here and spend summers. Everyone left though upon hitting a certain age. Why didnt younger people? Mainly because they were reliant on their jobs. With remote work and the buildout of ecommerce, there are now plenty of other cities and regions that can offer folks an income. That changes everything and thats likely why we are seeing young people move around so much.  

[73 Reds]

43 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

Concerning the polarization issue, i would offer the opinion that the propensity/capacity to entertain constructive discussions using facts, "data" and rational thought (not personal insults, condescension and other rhetorical strategies) is inversely correlated to the growing divisiveness "climate" that has been (and continue to be) playing out.

-----

Your conclusion:

"IMO deflation over the past few decades is primarily due to the efficiencies of new technologies and resulting competition."

1-Improved conditions for competition should result in lower corporate profit margins.

Data:

The data concerning rising corporate margins strongly suggests a move away from ideal competitive conditions.

2-If, in the last twenty years, it is suggested that widespread introduction and application of productive technology resulted in increased productivity, it should show up in numbers. It doesn't. Here's an example (among many others of good quality and reliability):

From Q2 1985 to Q2 2005, the productivity index rose by 57.4%.

From Q2 2005 to Q2 2025, the productivity index rose by 37.5%.

You may want to play with the time intervals and other references, but then, you are likely to find out that the US productivity profile has entered a decline since the mid 1970s.

Opinion: So there is strong evidence that your conclusion is wrong.

-----

It's interesting to remember that Mr. Buffett (in his landmark 1999 article on "markets") suggested that it would be unusual (paraphrasing here) to see a significant and durable rise in corporate margins because of the US secret sauce and because such rise in margins would inevitably lead to growing divisiveness.

Interesting graphs, but are we talking about profit margins or deflationary trends?  Indeed, more competition reduces profit margins for each competitor, but how does that translate to price inflation/deflation?  If we are addressing prices, some items cost more, others less.  For me personally, its somewhat of a wash; for every item that may cost more, computer/office equipment, airline travel, certain luxury items, even some real estate, (albeit in depressed areas where I like to invest) costs the same or less than it did 1 or 2 decades ago.  And certain items that cost more, such as vehicles, vacation experiences, athletic equipment, medical procedures, etc.. are of far higher quality than their equivalents 20 years ago.  So when we consider that the currency we use to measure prices has certainly decreased in value in the last 20 years, it would seem that price deflation in real (buying power) terms is the predominant trend.

 

You're right about the polarization issue yet many people with political differences - even here on this Board - cannot even agree on basic underlying facts and assumptions.  That does make having a useful discussion very difficult.

[Spekulatius]

12 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

IMO deflation over the past few decades is primarily due to the efficiencies of new technologies and resulting competition. 

Productivity growth has been very muted in the USA and Europe. it is mit the reason for deflationary forces. China and SE Asia with their large and young low cost workforce have been the main driver.

 

We are now losing access to this supply chain (mostly by choice), so it will be interesting how this works out. i don’t think automation is the solution because China manufacturing is highly automated already. Also electricity, building cost (Capex), raw material costs (also due to tariffs) and last not least labor costs are much higher. TSMC a while ago stated that it costs twice as much to build a chip fab than the same fab in Taiwan. That means depreciation costs are twice as high as well. It all adds up.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Spekulatius

[whiskybravo]

12 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Crime in NYC has been dropping consistently and its one of the safest large cities in the country.  And population has actually been growing which is why rents continue to be through the roof. 

Arrests are down.  Directions from on high.  Crime statistics are based on arrests.  But yeah, I feel fewer menacing moments then in 2001-2.

 

Regulations restricting new development is all the fuel needed for rents to remain high. 
 

All the Mamdani supporters here for their New York adventure think the world starts with them.  Fourty years ago when I came to NewYork, I lived with three other guys in order to afford rent, though it was a cool railroad apartment.  Sigh, fond memories of being poor.

[whiskybravo]

13 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yeah, it's a great place if you like homeless encampments, people shitting on the sidewalks and using drugs.  Great atmosphere.

It is getting better. Where I live it’s clean and the park is full or European tourists ambling about.  I did recently see some dudes shooting up on my street.  But hey it’s NYC after all.
 

Now if Mamdani (I Madman) wins lookout below.  George Will said that he hopes he wins saying we as a society need to be reminded every so often of the failure of socialism.  Looks like I may have to take one for the team.

Edited August 14, 2025 by whiskybravo

[whiskybravo]

12 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Do you have data on that?  Because increasing rents (from what were already some of the highest in the country) would suggest its not the case.  

 

Its easy to shit on any city in the country (or any place really). But what point are you trying to make?  The city is growing. Crime is down. If you dont like the city, dont visit.  

There are less moneyed people coming in looking to move here. Friends who have been real estate agents for decades definitely see this.  Who would choose to move here de novo on the cusp of I Madman?  I know plenty who moved to their second homes in Connecticut or the Hamptons during Covid and who I now only see when they’re in town do see their doctor.  These are people who were avid theater goers.  Ones who enjoyed all the best things NYC offered.  Now they’re out trimming their gardens.  

Edited August 14, 2025 by whiskybravo

[73 Reds]

7 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

It is getting better. Where I live it’s clean and the park is full or European tourists ambling about.  I did recently see some dudes shooting up on my street.  But hey it’s NYC after all.
 

Now if Mamdani (I Madman) wins lookout below.  George Will said that he hopes he wins saying we as a society need to be reminded every so often of the failure of socialism.  Looks like I may have to take one for the team.

Can someone (anyone) explain the appeal of socialism to a city like NYC?  Has it worked anywhere?   How most NY democrats remain largely silent on this issue is mystifying. Are they purposely trying to destroy their own city?  

[whiskybravo]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Can someone (anyone) explain the appeal of socialism to a city like NYC?  Has it worked anywhere?   How most NY democrats remain largely silent on this issue is mystifying. Are they purposely trying to destroy their own city?  

The young progressives who are his largest supporters are in town for a few years adventure.  They don’t think about what the city might look like down the road.  They haven’t, for the most part, put the work in to see where things go when capitalism is throttled.  Pushing close to 10% of the population is muslim, for whom he obviously has appeal.  Throw in old leftists like a guy i know who proudly claims that he was a red diaper baby and there you are.  Most of my friends and acquaintances, especially Jews, are against him.  The answer to your last question is varying forms of stupidity or in the case of muslims that oldest of political formulas tribal loyalty.

 

Not going to happen, but I wish the two democrats who either didn’t seek or didn’t win the nomination would drop out.  I am going to vote Republican.  If you have a chance listen to Curtis Sliwa’s interview on New York 1 with Errol Lewis.  He’s no joke. 

[73 Reds]

27 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

The young progressives who are his largest supporters are in town for a few years adventure.  They don’t think about what the city might look like down the road.  They haven’t, for the most part, put the work in to see where things go when capitalism is throttled.  Pushing close to 10% of the population is muslim, for whom he obviously has appeal.  Throw in old leftists like a guy i know who proudly claims that he was a red diaper baby and there you are.  Most of my friends and acquaintances, especially Jews, are against him.  The answer to your last question is varying forms of stupidity or in the case of muslims that oldest of political formulas tribal loyalty.

 

Not going to happen, but I wish the two democrats who either didn’t seek or didn’t win the nomination would drop out.  I am going to vote Republican.  If you have a chance listen to Curtis Sliwa’s interview on New York 1 with Errol Lewis.  He’s no joke. 

It is hard to imagine why anyone who works and pays taxes would be for him.   How do any of his supporters believe everything he wants to provide will be paid for?  Do they even care?  Perhaps it is a longshot but if anyone on this Board is a Mamdani supporter, or even supports Bernie Sanders, I am genuinely interested in your rationale.

Edited August 14, 2025 by 73 Reds
spelling

[LC]

No clue about Mandani or NYC politics anymore, but re: Sanders 

 

If he won in 2016 we'd be looking at a much better state of America vs today - if for the very reason that he is the only politician I actually think wouldn't use the office for the gain of himself/ his cronies. And I think congress/courts would buffer more extreme policies. 

 

For example - one of his big platforms is reduced military spending, reduced healthcare costs.

IMO his approach to cutting expenses in those areas would be more thoughtful vs. the DOGE approach (honestly, couldn't be worse).  

 

to the larger question: ultimately why is someone like Bernie needed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

People hear socialism and start frothing at the mouth.

But they have no problem with Trump taxing US consumers via tariffs to fund massive tax cuts for the 1%.

 

So the issue with Bernie is not a policy problem, it's a marketing problem. 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, LC said:

No clue about Mandani or NYC politics anymore, but re: Sanders 

 

If he won in 2016 we'd be looking at a much better state of America vs today - if for the very reason that he is the only politician I actually think wouldn't use the office for the gain of himself/ his cronies. And I think congress/courts would buffer more extreme policies. 

 

For example - one of his big platforms is reduced military spending, reduced healthcare costs.

IMO his approach to cutting expenses in those areas would be more thoughtful vs. the DOGE approach (honestly, couldn't be worse).  

 

to the larger question: ultimately why is someone like Bernie needed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

People hear socialism and start frothing at the mouth.

But they have no problem with Trump taxing US consumers via tariffs to fund massive tax cuts for the 1%.

 

So the issue with Bernie is not a policy problem, it's a marketing problem. 

If congress/courts are so good at buffering extreme policies, why are you and others so concerned with Trump?   I appreciate your response but believe that socialism is far more than a marketing issue.  

[Parsad]

Hmmm:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bessent-says-japan-behind-curve-002532552.html

 

But:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ppi-inflation-shock-core-producer-prices-hit-3-year-high-in-july-in-head-scratching-inflation-surge-123743902.html

 

Pot calling the kettle black!  Cheers!

[LC]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

If congress/courts are so good at buffering extreme policies, why are you and others so concerned with Trump?   I appreciate your response but believe that socialism is far more than a marketing issue.  

Because they’re stacked with republican picks currently - so they’re good at buffering against democrat-led policies, but they roll over for their own party policies.