Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
Living below one’s means can be a way of wealth generation, but it is not the only way of wealth generation. I am not sure that Bill Gates became wealthy because of steady habits of spending less than they earned. Mainly they took big risks and hit it big. In that aspect, they are not that different from lottery winners.

In addition, nobody has established that there is no correlation between income and wealth. You have speculated that there is no correlation, but nobody has presented any data one way or another. Part of the problem is the question of how does one define income.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t speculation, though the information would be considered outdated at this point. I believe I first read it in “The Millionaire Next Door”. That work has been critiqued, not because the critics doubt the accuracy of it at the time it was written, but because critics assert that times have changed and it’s no longer possible to start new businesses, underconsume, get the returns, etc.

But there is no shortage of those who counsel patient small investing over a long period in order to generate considerable wealth. Necessarily that requires underconsumption, and consuming all or more of one’s income, however high, will never get a person there.

I will also admit that much of my thinking has been influenced by the dreaded “anecdotal evidence”. I see hundreds of loan applications annually, and there really is no correlation between income and wealth in them. I see plenty of people making $100,000 and more annually who don’t own anything other than some expensive toys and a pretty significant house. I also see people with much lower annual incomes who have accumulated a surprising amount of wealth, relatively speaking. Some of those are young people.

I think the difference between most wealth accumulators and garden variety big spenders is fundamentally psychological.

There are certainly exceptions; people whose wealth accumulation has been explosive because of real business genius or a combination of moderate business genius and remarkable opportunity. I see those too, and know enough of them personally to understand how they did what they did. But outliers like them, or like Gates, do not make a rule.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One has to wonder at least a bit about this.

It’s pretty well established that wealth generation is fundamentally premised on living below one’s means over a significant period of time. Some do that, and some don’t. The question is why. As mentioned previously, there is no particular correlation between income and wealth accumulation. Many who make the “big bucks” spend them all and more on consumer goods of one kind or another. Some who make modest incomes surprise everyone at death when their estates are discovered to be a million dollars or more.

I do think “practice” matters in all of that; good habits of life. But isn’t “practice” at anything dependent on one’s state of mind and his character?
Click to expand...
The Millionaire Next Door is a good read on this subject.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It wasn’t speculation, though the information would be considered outdated at this point. I believe I first read it in “The Millionaire Next Door”. That work has been critiqued, not because the critics doubt the accuracy of it at the time it was written, but because critics assert that times have changed and it’s no longer possible to start new businesses, underconsume, get the returns, etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, the problem with their methodology is the sample they use. They use more of a convenience sample it is not really representative of the population as a whole, so it is dangerous to generalize to the entire population from their work.
But there is no shortage of those who counsel patient small investing over a long period in order to generate considerable wealth. Necessarily that requires underconsumption, and consuming all or more of one’s income, however high, will never get a person there.
Click to expand...
Certainly it can be a path to wealth, but it is not the only path to wealth.
I will also admit that much of my thinking has been influenced by the dreaded “anecdotal evidence”. I see hundreds of loan applications annually, and there really is no correlation between income and wealth in them. I see plenty of people making $100,000 and more annually who don’t own anything other than some expensive toys and a pretty significant house. I also see people with much lower annual incomes who have accumulated a surprising amount of wealth, relatively speaking. Some of those are young people.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that we need to be very skeptical about generalizing from anecdotal evidence. And of course, the big problem is how do we define income.
I think the difference between most wealth accumulators and garden variety big spenders is fundamentally psychological.
Click to expand...
There are certainly exceptions; people whose wealth accumulation has been explosive because of real business genius or a combination of moderate business genius and remarkable opportunity. I see those too, and know enough of them personally to understand how they did what they did. But outliers like them, or like Gates, do not make a rule.
Click to expand...
Income is affected by two main factors. Decisions of the individual and others and then the second component is pure luck. Oftentimes we conflate the two, since it can be difficult to differentiate the two.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Certainly it can be a path to wealth, but it is not the only path to wealth.

I agree with you that we need to be very skeptical about generalizing from anecdotal evidence. And of course, the big problem is how do we define income.

Income is affected by two main factors. Decisions of the individual and others and then the second component is pure luck. Oftentimes we conflate the two, since it can be difficult to differentiate the two.
Click to expand...
No publication is ever without its critics.

I never claimed that living below one’s means is the only path to wealth.

At a point, anecdotal evidence becomes pretty persuasive. I have seen thousands upon thousands of loan applications during my lifetime, and there is no observable correlation between income and wealth. An exception can be made, though not necessarily, for high earners who have “forced savings” plans like 401Ks that they leave alone and do not cash out or borrow against. But I have also seen a lot of borrowing against those.

As between decisions of the individual and sheer luck, it is difficult to attribute a whole lot of success to the latter unless one takes a very wide view of “luck”, e.g. the country one is born in, the mores of one’s parents, their educational level, that of the subject, the influences on his/her life, recognizing an opportunity of a fairly ordinary sort that others can see but do not take advantage of, etc, etc.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Clinton and Trump are expected to win in New York today:

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/clinton-and-trump-poised-for-new-york-victories.html

No surprise there.
Click to expand...
No surprise at all, Lily. I won’t exactly be surprised though if it’s closer than most polls suggest. Given the massive crowds Bernie has turned out although as I will get to in a minute, not everyone in those crowds are necessarily able to vote today, and the polls meant nothing in MI. But NY is a closed primary state where only registered party members can vote in the primary and previously registered voters had to switch their registration to Democratic or Republican by last Oct. That should help Hillary since unless they are first time voters, anyone voting today in either party’s primary today had to be registered as a member of the party 6 mos ago or they can’t vote. Just ask Ivanka and Eric Trump why they aren’t voting for their father. Apparently they were either independents or Democrats and didn’t switch by last Oct. Only first time voters had until last month to register and declare. Everyone else had to have their house in order 6 mos ago.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No publication is ever without its critics.
Click to expand...
When people use bad methodology it is appropriate to point that out. The danger is when people use bad methodology to get to a result that confirms people’s biases and then people the flawed results to suggest that there is some generalization that can be made. It really reflects a lack of critical thinking.
I never claimed that living below one’s means is the only path to wealth.
Click to expand...
True. You did claim that there is no correlation between income and wealth. But as you admit, you have no good data to back that up. You just have anecdotal data, which you admit is flawed.
At a point, anecdotal evidence becomes pretty persuasive. I have seen thousands upon thousands of loan applications during my lifetime, and there is no observable correlation between income and wealth. An exception can be made, though not necessarily, for high earners who have “forced savings” plans like 401Ks that they leave alone and do not cash out or borrow against. But I have also seen a lot of borrowing against those.
Click to expand...
In my profession we prefer hard data. I am sure we could get the answer if we looked at the Panel Study on Income Dynamics and traced households over a couple of decades. I would be very surprised if the PSID showed zero or negative correlation between income and wealth. But I will admit, in the absence of data we cannot say anything one way or another.
As between decisions of the individual and sheer luck, it is difficult to attribute a whole lot of success to the latter unless one takes a very wide view of “luck”, e.g. the country one is born in, the mores of one’s parents, their educational level, that of the subject, the influences on his/her life, recognizing an opportunity of a fairly ordinary sort that others can see but do not take advantage of, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Where one is born can have a big impact on economic outcomes. That is certainly not deterministic, but random. If you are born to parents who went to Harvard, you probably have more educational opportunities than someone whose parents can read. Those are definitely luck factors. That does not mean that one cannot rise above bad circumstances, many indeed do. It is probably better to be a lucky Harvard legacy than an honor student at a directional state school.
 
Sy_Noe said:
No surprise at all, Lily. I won’t exactly be surprised though if it’s closer than most polls suggest. Given the massive crowds Bernie has turned out although as I will get to in a minute, not everyone in those crowds are necessarily able to vote today, and the polls meant nothing in MI. But NY is a closed primary state where only registered party members can vote in the primary and previously registered voters had to switch their registration to Democratic or Republican by last Oct. That should help Hillary since unless they are first time voters, anyone voting today in either party’s primary today had to be registered as a member of the party 6 mos ago or they can’t vote. Just ask Ivanka and Eric Trump why they aren’t voting for their father. Apparently they were either independents or Democrats and didn’t switch by last Oct. Only first time voters had until last month to register and declare. Everyone else had to have their house in order 6 mos ago.
Click to expand...
I expect Trump to win big, Sy, but I expect the numbers for Hillary and Bernie to be fairly close. If she’d win by a double-digit margin, that would be a surprise.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering. Please stay on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
 
A huge win for Hillary Clinton in New York tonight, too. Bigger than even she thought it would be. About 60/40 for both Clinton and Trump.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
A huge win for Hillary Clinton in New York tonight, too. Bigger than even she thought it would be. About 60/40 for both Clinton and Trump.
Click to expand...
I thought a great speech by her as well following her huge win. As a Sanders supporter, I liked how she spoke about there being more uniting the two camps than there is dividing us against Trump or Cruz. She definitely gave us insight as to how she intends to campaign against Trump or Cruz and win a general election. And I liked it when she spoke about Erica Smegielski, the daughter of the Sandy Hook Elem School principal, and Erica’s efforts towards reasonable common sense gun laws.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I thought a great speech by her as well following her huge win. As a Sanders supporter, I liked how she spoke about there being more uniting the two camps than there is dividing us against Trump or Cruz. She definitely gave us insight as to how she intends to campaign against Trump or Cruz and win a general election. And I liked it when she spoke about Erica Smegielski, the daughter of the Sandy Hook Elem School principal, and Erica’s efforts towards reasonable common sense gun laws.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I voted for Bernie today but I appreciated her speech.
 
gracepoole said:
Agreed. I voted for Bernie today but I appreciated her speech.
Click to expand...
I saw exit polls showing about 85% of Sanders supporters in NY are already saying they would or would probably vote for her in Nov and it was similar the other way around. And it’s only Apr. Not overly surprising I guess considering NY is a blue state but I thought it bode well for the 2 camps eventually uniting.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I saw exit polls showing about 85% of Sanders supporters in NY are already saying they would or would probably vote for her in Nov and it was similar the other way around. And it’s only Apr. Not overly surprising I guess considering NY is a blue state but I thought it bode well for the 2 camps eventually uniting.
Click to expand...
But Hillary is not qualified to be President according to Mr. Sanders.
 
 
Tomdstone said:
Sanders may have changed his mind, but he did say that Hillary is not qualified to be President:
Here is the proof:
cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qualified/
politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-is-not-qualified-to-be-president/
nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not-qualified-be-president-n552141
msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not-qualified-be-president
theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/apr/07/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-is-not-qualified-to-be-president-video
etc.
Click to expand...
And subsequent to that, he corrected himself and said he didn’t mean it. Sy posted the link. You must have missed it. He said, “Of course she’s qualified.” Clinton responded by saying she’d take Sanders over any of the Repubs. any day.

politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-reverses-hillary-clinton-qualified-221709

"Bernie Sanders reversed himself Friday, tempering his vicious two-day attack line that Hillary Clinton is not “qualified” for the presidency.

“Of course” the former secretary of state is qualified for the White House, Sanders said during a town hall on NBC’s “Today.”

“On her worst day she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates,” he said, heaping praise on his opponent in a similar fashion to what Clinton said the prior day in response to the Vermont senator doubling down on his sharp rhetoric."

Democrats always unite behind the nominee. Clinton even campaigned for Obama in 2008. Sanders would campaign for her, and urge his supporters to vote for her.

I voted for Bernie, but the second Hillary secures the nomination, my vote is hers.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
And subsequent to that, he corrected himself and said he didn’t mean it. Sy posted the link. You must have missed it. He said, “Of course she’s qualified.” Clinton responded by saying she’d take Sanders over any of the Repubs. any day.

politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-reverses-hillary-clinton-qualified-221709

"Bernie Sanders reversed himself Friday, tempering his vicious two-day attack line that Hillary Clinton is not “qualified” for the presidency.

“Of course” the former secretary of state is qualified for the White House, Sanders said during a town hall on NBC’s “Today.”

“On her worst day she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates,” he said, heaping praise on his opponent in a similar fashion to what Clinton said the prior day in response to the Vermont senator doubling down on his sharp rhetoric."

Democrats always unite behind the nominee. Clinton even campaigned for Obama in 2008. Sanders would campaign for her, and urge his supporters to vote for her.

I voted for Bernie, but the second Hillary secures the nomination, my vote is hers.
Click to expand...
He is flip flopping. At one time he said she was not qualified, later he said she was. How can someone who flip flops on such a serious issue be trusted? If he flip flopped on that, how do we know that he won’t flip flop on many of his promises, such as breaking up the big banks, which Paul Krugman said is not feasible?
 
There’s no reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton because even if she got elected, she would not be able to get any legislation passed with the current status quo of the Congress, so supporters of her candidacy can forget about the Federal Minimum Wage or a Federal Living Wage and ditto for stricter Climate Change Environmental legislation being passed.

She could maybe directly raise Federal Government employees’ pay for those Federal employees who make less than $15.00 an hour but beyond that, the average person would not see any Federally set wage.

So, there’s no reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

It would just be the same gridlock that we have with the current Democratic Administration.
 
Dwyer said:
There’s no reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton because even if she got elected, she would not be able to get any legislation passed with the current status quo of the Congress, so supporters of her candidacy can forget about the Federal Minimum Wage or a Federal Living Wage and ditto for stricter Climate Change Environmental legislation being passed.

She could maybe directly raise Federal Government employees’ pay for those Federal employees who make less than $15.00 an hour but beyond that, the average person would not see any Federally set wage.

So, there’s no reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

It would just be the same gridlock that we have with the current Democratic Administration.
Click to expand...
Off course she could get legislation passed. She’d be an incoming president. If the Repub. Party didn’t work with her, they’d implode. And when election time rolls around, the Democrats will control Congress once again.

Hillary has the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, every ethnicity vote, and tonight she proved she has the average white American vote as well. Her base is broad; she will be all but unbeatable in November. And Bernie will support her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top