What do you think about the acculation of.wealth ?

Trump accounts are privately-owned-and-controlled investment accounts in which private citizens may invest. Even Musk, if he indeed so chooses.

They are not means for the government-owned-or-controlled production or distribution of goods or services.

If you want to see a much better example of "real socialism" look for government-owned grocery stores putting private store owners out of business and helping to cut variety and availability to a neighborhood (giggle). Or look for massive government railroad projects that vastly exceed predicted costs but don't seem to actually lay much track, even after the passage of years.

It's not an argument that we should try to win -- it is the future. A future of individual freedom and opportunity, not ever-larger-and-more-controlling government run by grown but self-centered college kids with little other life experience, even if they're, like, sooooo cool and have great hair.

Republicans raise the GDP, while others seem sometimes merely to raise dependence and false hope while gaining power. It's better to cowboy up than complain.

Please vote and do the right thing -- even if others think it's not, like, sooooo cool. Time might be running out. Look at the sad examples of self-destructive fashion being furnished around the world. Let's not trash cities!

Trump accounts are privately-owned-and-controlled investment accounts in which private citizens may invest. Even Musk, if he indeed so chooses. They are not means for the government-owned-or-controlled production or distribution of goods or services. If you want to see a much better example of "real socialism" look for government-owned grocery stores putting private store owners out of business and helping to cut variety and availability to a neighborhood (giggle). Or look for massive government railroad projects that vastly exceed predicted costs but don't seem to actually lay much track, even after the passage of years. It's not an argument that we should try to win -- it is the future. A future of individual freedom and opportunity, not ever-larger-and-more-controlling government run by grown but self-centered college kids with little other life experience, even if they're, like, sooooo cool and have great hair. Republicans raise the GDP, while others seem sometimes merely to raise dependence and false hope while gaining power. It's better to cowboy up than complain. Please vote and do the right thing -- even if others think it's not, like, sooooo cool. Time might be running out. Look at the sad examples of self-destructive fashion being furnished around the world. Let's not trash cities!

Noflaps

edited

How nice it is to receive "smileys" from other esteemed forum participants. They are like the first buds of spring! Even when winter still awaits us!

How sad that editing a post seems to make them vanish!

How nice it is to receive "smileys" from other esteemed forum participants. They are like the first buds of spring! Even when winter still awaits us! How sad that editing a post seems to make them vanish!

clousems

I’ll start with a quote from the Cato institute:

“Trump Accounts function primarily as a government welfare program rather than a tax-neutral investment vehicle”

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/improving-trump-accounts

I’m not saying I’m entirely against the idea of them—while I’m not a huge fan, I can think of worse use of funds— but the federal government giving money to every kid born in America under a certain time frame is one of the most obvious examples of a government acting in a wealth distribution role imaginable. It utilizes a market socialist framework, to be sure, but are you really going argue that market socialism isn’t a form of socialism?

I’ll start with a quote from the Cato institute: “Trump Accounts function primarily as a government welfare program rather than a tax-neutral investment vehicle” https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/improving-trump-accounts I’m not saying I’m entirely against the idea of them—while I’m not a huge fan, I can think of worse use of funds— but the federal government giving money to every kid born in America under a certain time frame is one of the most obvious examples of a government acting in a wealth distribution role imaginable. It utilizes a market socialist framework, to be sure, but are you really going argue that market socialism isn’t a form of socialism?

Noflaps

edited

The CATO institute can be using the word "primarily" there only if they expect that most of the investment, long term, in a Trump account will come only from government.

But I must say nay! MOST of the investments in a given account, over the evolving lifetime of the child, will hopefully -- and probably -- come from private individuals, I believe.

The government contributes a primer. And then, I believe, others should and usually will pump and pump. Or so we hope, probably with justification.

Do we not agree that the accounts are not meant to be just a one-day affair, but instead meant to create a delightful, long-term relationship between the child and a wonderful capitalist opportunity to invest labor's fruit?

And a steady relationship is, I steadily maintain, the best sort of relationship. One keeps feeding a spaniel. One does not feed a spaniel but once and then move on.

The CATO institute can be using the word "primarily" there only if they expect that most of the investment, long term, in a Trump account will come only from government. But I must say nay! MOST of the investments in a given account, over the evolving lifetime of the child, will hopefully -- and probably -- come from private individuals, I believe. The government contributes a primer. And then, I believe, others should and usually will pump and pump. Or so we hope, probably with justification. Do we not agree that the accounts are not meant to be just a one-day affair, but instead meant to create a delightful, long-term relationship between the child and a wonderful capitalist opportunity to invest labor's fruit? And a steady relationship is, I steadily maintain, the best sort of relationship. One keeps feeding a spaniel. One does not feed a spaniel but once and then move on.

clousems

@Noflaps said ^

The CATO institute can be using the word "primarily" there only if they expect that most of the investment, long term, in a Trump account will come only from government.

But I must say nay! MOST of the investments in a given account, over the evolving lifetime of the child, will hopefully -- and probably -- come from private individuals, I believe.

The government contributes a primer. And t...

That is irrelevant to anything I said. I merely pointed out that the policy is socialist in nature. I am not discussing the merits at this time.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GWJlq29d) > The CATO institute can be using the word "primarily" there only if they expect that most of the investment, long term, in a Trump account will come only from government. > > But I must say nay! MOST of the investments in a given account, over the evolving lifetime of the child, will hopefully -- and probably -- come from private individuals, I believe. > > The government contributes a primer. And t... That is irrelevant to anything I said. I merely pointed out that the policy is socialist in nature. I am not discussing the merits at this time.

Noflaps

edited

My post was not at all "irrelevant" to what you posted. I simply disagreed with the use of one of the words in something YOU chose to quote in your post, and I noted why I disagreed.

This is a discussion, not a contest of wills. Assuming you quoted accurately (which I DO assume), I apparently disagree with CATO's view of the "primary" nature of how the accounts "function." In most cases, the accounts will no doubt last far beyond the initial contribution.

They will "primarily" function, I believe, as a private investment vehicle, as they receive private contributions made into private banking institutions, going forward for years into the future. That is hardly "irrelevant" to any claim that they "primarily" function as a government "welfare" program. Grandma and government needn't be confused.

The word "irrelevant" seems to get tossed around a lot lately. It sometimes seems more like a grumpy deflection than a pertinent observation. I think most adults intelligent enough to be in the Lichess forum typically do not respond with merely random, unrelated observations.

My post was not at all "irrelevant" to what you posted. I simply disagreed with the use of one of the words in something YOU chose to quote in your post, and I noted why I disagreed. This is a discussion, not a contest of wills. Assuming you quoted accurately (which I DO assume), I apparently disagree with CATO's view of the "primary" nature of how the accounts "function." In most cases, the accounts will no doubt last far beyond the initial contribution. They will "primarily" function, I believe, as a private investment vehicle, as they receive private contributions made into private banking institutions, going forward for years into the future. That is hardly "irrelevant" to any claim that they "primarily" function as a government "welfare" program. Grandma and government needn't be confused. The word "irrelevant" seems to get tossed around a lot lately. It sometimes seems more like a grumpy deflection than a pertinent observation. I think most adults intelligent enough to be in the Lichess forum typically do not respond with merely random, unrelated observations.

clousems

This kind of thing is why people don’t take you very seriously too much these days. You can’t approach a topic with a religious devotion, then expect others to adopt your stance when they are the ones who would have to abandon the evidence. If you’re really wanting to dispute the Cato institute’s findings, I would expect an incredibly focused, thought out, well researched study by a reputable institution. At the very least, you should identify flaws and introduce logical alternative hypotheses that would call the validity of the study into question. I trust the Cato institute more than I trust you.

Now, with that out of the way, the reason that your response lacked relevance is that it was in direct response to my post that Trump accounts are socialist; the Cato institute reference was a preface,. If I’m going to make a claim, even if I can prove it logically through definitions, it’s nice to have a link to a highly reputable source in order to support the idea. It’s not necessary, mind you (if you remove the link and quote, the post does not change in meaning, nor does the logic fail), but it certainly doesn’t hurt.

To put it plainly— I’m wondering why, despite the dozens of aggressively anti-Socialist posts I’ve seen from you, you’re defending a recently implemented socialist policy. How is it not hypocritical?

(Note: please don’t ask me for investment advice. I’m happily out of the game)

First: regarding the Cato institute’s policy analysis: on what are you basing your dismissal? I posted the link. Are you dismissing the conclusion of a published study (by the Cato institute, no less!) on the grounds of assumption, without even opening the article? What qualifies you to do so? I’ve got multiple degrees in the financial disciplines and am a former financial services professional who is now working in financial analysis, and I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable dismissing a study by one of the world’s premier, non partisan think tanks without careful analysis and sufficient contradictory evidence from established, respected sources or data that is independently verified. If we’re just pulling claims out of our asses, I think we ALL know that RFK Jr. sexually assaulted Elmo from Sesame Street, and I should HOPE that we all condemn his behavior. This kind of thing is why people don’t take you very seriously too much these days. You can’t approach a topic with a religious devotion, then expect others to adopt your stance when they are the ones who would have to abandon the evidence. If you’re really wanting to dispute the Cato institute’s findings, I would expect an incredibly focused, thought out, well researched study by a reputable institution. At the very least, you should identify flaws and introduce logical alternative hypotheses that would call the validity of the study into question. I trust the Cato institute more than I trust you. Now, with that out of the way, the reason that your response lacked relevance is that it was in direct response to my post that Trump accounts are socialist; the Cato institute reference was a preface,. If I’m going to make a claim, even if I can prove it logically through definitions, it’s nice to have a link to a highly reputable source in order to support the idea. It’s not necessary, mind you (if you remove the link and quote, the post does not change in meaning, nor does the logic fail), but it certainly doesn’t *hurt*. To put it plainly— I’m wondering why, despite the dozens of aggressively anti-Socialist posts I’ve seen from you, you’re defending a recently implemented socialist policy. How is it not hypocritical? (Note: please don’t ask me for investment advice. I’m happily out of the game)