O noes! The theme is gone!

Your reality is different from mine.

I missed this and don't even know who it was attributed to, because much of this thread went faster than me. Regardless, there is only one reality. Whether or not one chooses to accept it is the thing that's different.

I think that's mine.

One reality. 8 billion perceptions of it. Each as valid as the last.

Are they though? The earth gives no ****s if you perceive that it's flat. If you go around it, you will end up where you started because that's reality.

You get stuck in really odd spots.

EDIT - that wasn't entirely fair. But we were generally discussing the gray area that is morality and then suddenly you hit me with "The Earth is round".

Yep. It is. But that's not the context my comment was meant in. I expected that would be understood.

Jeff:

Regardless, there is only one reality.

While theoretically this makes sense, who is correct?

Yes, there are things that are true (the earth is not flat, Cedar Fair purchased Geauga Lake just to destroy it, etc.), but reality is a pretty subjective thing.

I have two older sisters who are 4 and 10 years older than me. We each have vastly different realities of how you could define our family. Who wins? (me, of course)

Perhaps the only reality is the idea that there are infinite realities, each individually and socially constructed. Imagine explaining (one of) our social constructs of reality to a 13 year old growing up in Gaza and leaning in, whispering, and saying..."look, there is only one reality..."

Vater:

Suspicion predictably confirmed.

I don't view DOGE as ridiculous as a result of my opinion of Elon or my vote.

I view DOGE as ridiculous because it is being championed by an administration who, between TCJA, CARES, and CAA, added more than $5 trillion to the US debt, and who, through proposals, including an extension of TCJA, aim to add another $3+ trillion. I honestly cannot comprehend why anyone, regardless of their political point of view, would take their "we're going to reduce government spending and balance the budget" at all seriously, given their very recent historic performance and publicly-stated proposals for their next term.

I think it’s because they mean Meaning Two. Also known as the “starve the beast” strategy. But if that doesn’t work, well…shrugs all around I guess, because the important part is lowering taxes for the people who pay the bulk of them.

No matter what, I'm reminded of something a mentor once told me: "Whenever anyone anywhere talks about cutting costs, that ultimately boils down into taking money out of someone's paycheck somewhere." There is no way to shrink government spending without at least the pain of finding new jobs for people who are displaced/leave.

This is less true in the long term. Funding for deficit spending is funding that could otherwise be invested in the private economy. With at least the market allocating those resources in the private sector (whatever your view of the market in terms of being a force for good or evil). Eventually, further increasing national debt will reduce economic growth (further crowds out other investments, creates inflation and increases interest rates). So, its not like there is an option of "we need to keep deficit spending because cutting any of it would reduce economic growth." Doing that will reduce economic growth as well.

One of my first days of law school, professor drew 2 vertical lines on a chalkboard. To outside of one, he wrote "Black" and to the outside of the other he wrote "White." Then shaded the space in-between noting it was "Gray." Told us if we were not comfortable in the Gray to "get out." No one left the classroom that day but there are people who are less comfortable in the gray.

Debt is a good counter example , though even there the money to service the debt is ultimately paying someone. It’s not generating any public good. Unless you want to argue that the debt allows more spending and that spending fuels the economy. I don’t, way above my pay grade.

OhioStater:

but reality is a pretty subjective thing.

I know I'm playing a semantic game here (#autism, #englishmajor), but by definition, reality is not subjective. It can exist in only one state. Perceptions can be different, sure, but culturally we've co-opted the word "reality" to mean something that it does not.

GoBucks89:
Funding for deficit spending is funding that could otherwise be invested in the private economy.

I think we all understand that trickle down economics is not a thing though. There's this persistent myth that if companies have money, they'll spend it. But they don't, they sit on huge amounts of cash for a number of reasons, which is their right to do so. Heck, I do that as a private citizen.

Brian Noble:
Unless you want to argue that the debt allows more spending and that spending fuels the economy.

There's nuance there, between long and short-term debt. Short-term debt is absolutely the thing that lubricates the economy and keeps things moving. Long-term, it depends. There are parallels to personal finance there as well. Borrowing long-term for operational (or living) expense has at best a dubious return on investment, but borrowing for capital expenses makes more sense. 2008 housing crisis aside, this is why it's good to buy a home, as it tends to appreciate in value while giving you a place to live.

djDaemon:

I don't view DOGE as ridiculous as a result of my opinion of Elon or my vote.

I wasn't implying that DOGE seeming ridiculous was a direct result of those, just that there's a correlation. But I get where you're coming from, as part of the reason I couldn't bring myself to vote for Harris was because she went a full 180° during this campaign from where she stood on several issues a few years ago.

I'm not expecting too much from it, because Congress is ultimately responsible for cutting spending, but I guess I'm just hopeful that anyone is even entertaining the idea of government efficiency.

Debt is a good counter example , though even there the money to service the debt is ultimately paying someone. It’s not generating any public good. Unless you want to argue that the debt allows more spending and that spending fuels the economy.

Leverage can be a good thing. If used correctly. But typically, try to match up debt maturity with related investment. Finance short term needs with short term debt (or ideally cash but sometimes short term debt can help with variable cash flows). Finance long term needs with long term debt. Financing short term needs with long term debt is a problem. You are using future borrowing capacity to finance current needs. Eventually that creates big problems. Further increased government debt will squeeze out other investments, increase interest rates and increase inflation.

Businesses typically don't borrow money to sit on it (and pay interest on the debt whilst it sits). Or raise equity to sit on the cash. They are raising funds typically for particular purposes. Businesses that hoard cash are doing so with cash from operations. That isn't what gets squeezed out when government debt keeps rising.

And ultimately, when a lot of people talk about companies, they are looking at a very small group (500 is a popular number). But the economy is much broader than that. The smaller the enterprise, the less likely it sits on huge amounts of cash (or often any).

Jeff:

Regardless, there is only one reality.

But perception is reality, right? If so, then my perception of a thing would be different that someone elses, and thus two different realities? But in the case of the earth, I suppose there is only one real truth, but I also don't think it's flat. The person who does think its flat, knows that it is flat, and for whatever reasoning that is their reality, and they will defend it, and act according to it, which then may alter our reality, so flat earth does alter reality, even if it is a lie.

Vater:
I'm not expecting too much from it, because Congress is ultimately responsible for cutting spending

Unless they change, or disregard the rules, which is something Trump has done before, will probably do again, and if he stacks the government with enough yes men, can then do whatever he really wants because who is going to stop him?

Jeff:
But they don't, they sit on huge amounts of cash for a number of reasons, which is their right to do so. Heck, I do that as a private citizen.

A private citizen, for the 95%, and maybe even the 98% or 99% don't sit on enough capital to matter. Companies and billionaires do. That is capital that could be changing hands and enriching others, instead it is holed up and removed from the economy. Capital, well more specifically money, seems to work better under a JIT philosophy. Money would be better utilized if everyone spent everything, and had 0 left over at the end, that way it continued changing hands, and allowing others to benefit, and then benefit others. When looking at it from an inventory perspective, we only hold onto capital to guard against unknowns, and to provide cushion if the supply chain breaks, so unemployment, or a large unexpected expense, thus everyone holds onto something extra if they can. But in a perfect system, everything that you need comes in, and then you use it, leaving no extra to sit around and create inefficiencies.

This was better exercised years ago, corporate taxes were much higher. This encouraged them to not hold as much capital, and instead spend it, spend it on growing the business, paying employees, really anything besides hoarding it. Then those people and other businesses would make money, then turn around and spend it on something else. The system has become broken by too few hoarding too much and thus removing it from the economy. No one person needs billions in stocks and funds, no one person or company needs to own hundreds of homes. These concentrations of wealth break the supply chains and break the system.

Vater:

part of the reason I couldn't bring myself to vote for Harris was because she went a full 180° during this campaign from where she stood on several issues a few years ago.

Trump used to be a democrat. I won't say all, but I'm betting it's close to all, politicians are happy to change position based on money and status they can gain from doing so. If I had enough money to give to Trump I without a doubt could change his stance on things. Pay him billions and suddently he will support planned parenthood, or will give grants for solar buildouts, or whatever you want. He is an easy target for manipulation, and there are plenty others.

Sure, people will align themselves with what is popular, but intent matters. Everything with Trump is transactional. If it benefits him, he's for it, his intent is personal gain at any cost to others. However, and you can call me naive, that's fine, I think politicians changing positions on things is the right thing to do, and not something to hold against them, for two reasons. The first is that they intend to align with their constituents. I mean, that's representative democracy, right? The second, and the thing that frankly all well-adjusted adults should do, is be willing to change their position with the acquisition of new information. That intent is honorable, and it's also how science happens. My dad was a lifelong Republican, but when he became a union rep, he became more of an independent. I suspect volunteering with local arts communities and charitable endeavors, he continued to evolve. He didn't flip, but he didn't stay Republican. Is he a flip-flopper? No, he's a grownup who engages in critical thinking. I don't understand why we don't want that from politicians.

TheMillenniumRider:

But perception is reality, right?

No, these words don't mean the same thing. There is one reality, endless variations on perception. If we mean perception, then let's call it perception. That there is no such thing as reality or a fact is insane.

Regarding personal savings, Americans saved a record amount from 2020 to 2021. They've steadily been draining it since. That wasn't really the point though, I was talking primarily about businesses and throwing myself in as an anecdote. My bad. But yeah, with little tax incentive to spend and especially with multinationals keeping money offshore, money not spent by the feds isn't going to magically drive a lot of private business. Heck, the fed money isn't even money they have, much of it is borrowed.

Are rich people keeping money in their mattresses?

Companies don't spend money to get a tax deduction. You could spend $1,000 and get a $210 tax benefit. But you are still out $790. And changing the rates doesn't change the result. Spend $1,000 to get a $340 tax benefit and you are still out $660. If you weren't looking to spend the money, the tax benefit won't get you there. You may spend the money different places if there is a tax advantage but that's money you were otherwise looking to spend.

If the government borrows less money, what happens to the money that would have been used to buy the government issued bonds/notes the government no longer needs to issue? Does it go back to the mattresses?

Jeff:

That there is no such thing as reality or a fact is insane.

I'm being that guy.

What is true and what is real are two different things.

(and we're so abstract and philosophical at this point that is literally has nothing to do with why anyone voted for Trump)

We observe reality to define truth to the best of our perceptive abilities. Reality is not true or false in and of itself. It just is. How we experience and observe it allows us to make statements such as "This is true" or "This is false" but, that too, is completely subject to our perceptive abilities.