If the choice comes down to hillary, sanders, or any of the 7 dwarfs of the republican party, sanders might not be so bad.
I'll take Sanders in that scenario.
You mean Nitrous Oxide, not Nitrogen.
Was there a point to this post?
Are you kidding? He did exactly what you would like. He gave back all the government money to the people and cut government spending on development projects. Small government. Consumers know better than the government where to spend their money. Let them create jobs.
Those are all things you agree with--right?
The new guy wants to means test the handouts--that's something you disagree with. He's the socialist.
This whole article is BS anyway. Look at this ridiculous example.
To simplify our discussion (without in any way affecting the conclusion) assume that both countries sell baseball bats for gold coins in international markets, and gold coins are also used to pay for haircuts. If producers of baseball bats in Yankee Land find a way to produce more bats per unit of labor time expended, then bat producers will experience rising profits (worldwide bat prices expressed in ounces of gold will not be affected by Yankee Land’s rise in productivity because Yankee Land is a small country).
First mistake--assumes unlimited demand. (similar to all Austrian examples)
If producers of baseball bats in Yankee Land find a way to produce more bats per unit of labor time expended, then bat producers will experience rising profits (worldwide bat prices expressed in ounces of gold will not be affected by Yankee Land’s rise in productivity because Yankee Land is a small country). Bat producers will hire erstwhile barbers to work for them, driving up wages for bat workers, driving down the number of barbers cutting hair, and driving up the amount in gold that must be paid to the remaining barbers for haircuts.
Second mistake. If Yankee Land is producing more bats per unit of labor time, and are experiencing rising profits--why are they hiring more people? Bat prices are the same. Companies don't hire based on profits--they hire to meet demand.
Even if Yankee Land did hire more workers, there would be other people out of work in other bat manufacturers that would be going to Red Sox to be barbers, right?
Finally, it assumes no barriers to labor moving throughout the world--which is clearly wrong. Culture, language, immigration, etc. are all large barriers.
The US constantly inflates the money stock which would seem to force other countries to inflate theirs just to stay even.
lol--that's the exact opposite of what your article says.
Unfortunately, trade policy must be agreed upon by politicians, who are known neither for their long time horizons nor their command of basic economics.
Neither do CEOs of major corporations I guess:
Stephen Biegun of Ford Motor Co. said that “currency manipulation is the mother of all trade barriers,” and that Ford “can compete with any car manufacturer in the world, but we can’t compete against the Bank of Japan.”
Put differently, nominal exchange rates do not determine what economists refer to as “real” exchange rates (the relative purchasing power of two currencies) except in the short run,
You know the saying--the long run is when we're all dead.
The short run can last for a LONG time.
A better solution would be re-interpreting what "minimum wage" is: instead of a line below which employment is illegal, it should become a minimum wage guaranteed by the government by having the government stump up the difference out of existing government budget. e.g. freeze government budget, and if an employer is only willing to pay $5/hr whereas the legislators have set $7.50/hr minimum wage, the government will pay the $2.50/hr difference at the time of the employee's tax filing for up to 40hrs per week and 52weeks in a year.
More corporate welfare. Great idea.
Nitrogen is 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
You mean Nitrous Oxide, not Nitrogen.
Medicaid: A few people cost a whole bunch of money
That's not a Medicaid problem--it's how health insurance works. Be careful--you're treading very close to death panel territory.
True, but the majority of his assertions come from one unnamed source with some details corroborated by 2 other sources.
"Most of Hersh's story relies on a single anonymous source, which is never the most promising sign in any story — but especially in an enormous investigative undertaking. Hersh says this source was "also was privy to many aspects of the Seals’ training for the raid, and to the various after-action reports." The reporter also relied on "two other US sources, who had access to corroborating information, have been longtime consultants to the Special Operations Command," as well as "information from inside Pakistan about widespread dismay among the senior ISI and military leadership." He also spoke to retired spy chief Asad Durrani, who has told the media previously that Pakistan knew about Osama bin Laden's location in Abbottabad and is the only source to appear by name in the story."
Yep--that wasn't meant as an ad hominem attack on him. Just that when he's basically only got one unnamed source, there are legitimate questions that he doesn't seem to want to answer.
1. We found him by tracking his Couriers,
2. Confirmed him with DNA testing with an underhanded vaccination campaign (which will really help NGos in the future).
3. Snuck in without Pakistani High Level cooperation and killed him when he resisted, though he was a cripple at this point.
4. Gave him a Muslim sea burial, which is totally unconfirmed and probably he never reached the Carl Vinson, but was either taken away by cooperative ISI agents for burial, or was dumped over the Hindu Kush Mountains.
5. SEALs have already leaked that their goal was to kill, not capture OBL. OBL could not be tried as it would demonstrate long standing ties to Terror-Financing States that donate heavily to US Political Campaigns of both parties.
I've read more of his essay and am now less sure of the official story, but far from convinced of Hersh's version either. He makes a big point of how illogical the original version is because how could Bin Laden be in Abbottobad without the Paks knowing--but I don't think anyone even implied that the Pakistanis didn't know. In the official version, that was why the raid had to be made without their knowledge. Because the US knew that there was a link between Pakistani intelligence and Bin Laden.
And this guy just seems a little unhinged to me. Have you read this interview?
Just to be clear here, the Democrats rejected it because the Republicans shot down a part of the bill that would have brought back the 2008 unemployment blank check for all of the unemployed that the trade deal displaced.
$225 a week at a time.
The Democrats are all for killing what few jobs we either have left, or have created in spite of their policies or lack there of. But they want to put them on the Entitlement playroll.
Cap-- You're a hard one to figure. You constantly bitch about Liberals, but you seem to really want the country adopt more liberal policies. Perhaps if you voted for people who share your worldview rather than folks like Palin--you wouldn't have to bitch all the time.
And it's always the same. Ignore the root cause, attack a symptom, usaully with a tax. Then wonder why there isn't widespread support
Problem - Income/wealth inequality
Solution - higher taxes on income
While I agree that free trade deals have been horribly damaging to the US economy, I think it's inevitable that we must come up with some sort of redistributive method. Even without foreign competition, machines will eventually displace labor, driving labor costs down and increasing inequality. Capital returns will be high while return on labor will be low. Progressive taxation is a valid method, though far from the only method. What would you call the root cause and how would you address that cause?
tatupu70, your rhetorical questions are a symptom of trolling pathology, not a productive use of time. Yes really, although I don't know or care which state the SEALs trained in. You and CIC should have the mother of all rhetorical question mark exchanges, the difference between you being your blind partisan loyalty.
Next time I need advise on the proper use of my time, I'll be sure to ask someone who posts endlessly about the faults of Obamacare.
Obviously I wouldn't expect you to know which state the SEALs trained in--but doesn't it make a statement about the writer's credibility on the topic that he gets such a simple detail incorrect? That his unnamed source, who almost certainly read the essay before publication, didn't correct it?
Or that multiple reporters were allowed into the compound and all agree that it appeared to be ransacked with many, many bullet holes throughout.
Further--even if this were true (which it does not appear to be)--how does it make Obama look bad? Bin Laden was killed. Whether we went it alone, or persuaded a foreign government that is not our ally to let us get him, it's still an accomplishment. Really the latter is probably more Presidential.
and his account of the OBL story makes a lot more sense than the official story.
Really? He got so much of it completely and verifiably wrong. Training in Utah? No bullets fired except for the ones that hit Bin Laden?
And much of the rest of the story is just illogical--Pakistan working with the US and allowing us to go kill him?
Why spend time training at all if we're just going there and being welcomed in the building by the Pakistanis?
Certainly not you, the guy who gets HIS economic information from Mother Jones.
Can you make an argument without a logical fallacy?
Read the thread
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase.
Now that the tariff nonsense has been thoroughly debunked here, and given that some of the Southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office--what do YOU think caused the Civil War?
Sactly, that is your problem.
also he intended to increase mercantilism.
I've got news for you. States don't secede over intent.
Please explain how government became more centralized in the time between Lincoln's election and the secession. What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.
Talk about a disingenuous title to a thread...
Who's to say? By his own admission, he modeled his tax plan after the bible. Who is to say he doesn't reference it often to mold his other economic ideas?
Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff
Stop it--you're killing me. They seceded out of the union because Lincoln was likely to raise the tariffs? You're kidding, right? What does centralized government even mean? And what does Lincoln getting elected have to do with it?
But he made it clear what is intention was, they seceded after his election.
huh? You said he didn't want to abolish slavery. The tariff nonsense has been pretty well debunked. So what are these intentions that he made clear that caused secession?
remember the Other time I was right?
Cap--you are hilarious. First off---you claimed Bin Laden was killed while hiding out in the mountains at Tora Bora which is not at all what this wacko in the article asserts. Second--the article you linked debunks his claims pretty soundly.
You're "right" in the same way that bgamall is "right" about 9/11 or the Boston Marathon.
Great example, we need this kind of action on the national level as well.
Yes, it worked so well for Kansas, let's try it in more states...