In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
He'll either get cheated just like Ron Paul, or he'll go full retard and pander to the social conservatives.
He has already started the pandering. Saying the first amendment doesn't entail keeping religion out of the government, booting up "defense of marriage rhetoric," etc. Regardless of whether you believe those things, they're a marked departure for him.
It'll only get worse once they put him on a stage with the other potential nominees because he seems to lack the cajones to actually maintain a position the people he's speaking to don't want to hear.
On April 08 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote: I agree with John Oliver:
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
as far as finance goes i think there is a real need to have a reformer that can genuinely dialogue with the industry while being clear about effective vs ineffective reform, especially on the effect of the boundary between shadow banking and regulated finance. regulation that render a particular market untenable will push the activity into shadow banking.
warren is too polarizing, and an entirely partisan approach to financial reform will leave us with no good outcomes.
On April 08 2015 01:40 always_winter wrote: I like John Oliver. I didn't much like that particular segment. Felt a bit contrived. I'm also not very fond of the liberal romanticizing of Edward Snowden, who while unveiling a well-deserved truth simultaneously and indiscriminately released thousands of pages of classified intelligence he didn't even bother to read. He's not a hero. He's not a villain, but he's definitely not some benevolent, highly-intelligent technocrat like some people believe him to be.
Government surveillance is really just like any other controversial issue lacking real substance, substituted by conjecture and fueled by speculation. It's a glimpse into a larger picture, but misses the underlying problem. I don't have a problem with my government sifting through data to thwart terrorism, which has found new strength in contemporary technology and the rapid spread of information it allows. I do have a problem with my government acting with complete impunity, enacting laws which strengthen its legal capacity while simultaneously diminishing its accountability. Law enforcement in the United States is in an incredibly precarious state, and without radical reformation will lead inevitably to further conflict with the American people. Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland- these are the case studies we should be investigating, demanding answers and implementing radical changes. Edward Snowden is just a distraction.
While I generally agree with your points on Snowden: he should have been far more careful with both what, and how, he opened up the information. I am also really underwhelmed every time he speaks on camera. He really isn't a good speaker at all, which results in his message coming across all muddled and confused.
However, some of the things he says are real problematic issues, and I agree that a lot of it could be solved by simply having better and more rigorous oversight committees. The CIA was very strictly controlled, even in its glory days of the cold war. Why is the NSA given so much freedom to do whatever the hell they like?
John Oliver's main point was not about Snowden, but about the Patriot Act, which is up for review in June. It is an atrocious piece of law that needs a serious overhaul. It was written in a rush to ensure there was legal leeway to go after Bin Laden and other terrorists with all possible means. However, it needs serious rethinking. You are innocent until proven guilty, and this (collection of) law treats everybody as guilty until proven innocent.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
On April 08 2015 02:10 oneofthem wrote: as far as finance goes i think there is a real need to have a reformer that can genuinely dialogue with the industry while being clear about effective vs ineffective reform, especially on the effect of the boundary between shadow banking and regulated finance. regulation that render a particular market untenable will push the activity into shadow banking.
warren is too polarizing, and an entirely partisan approach to financial reform will leave us with no good outcomes.
so Yellen2016 it is?
@millitron Yes ww1 was years off and the real change in general american prosperity was during and after the second worldwar. The gilded age was just that: a gold rush, where few got rich and many got some scraps. You and people like rand paul wan't a society of gold diggers: risk everything, lose everything, die alone or thrive. Nobody is stopping you from advocating for that position, but claiming it is somehow "conserving" or "conservative" of the hard fought accomplishments in the economic development in the second half of the 20th century is ludacris.
I hate the Patriot Act because its just a short cut for congress who didn't want to deal with the complex process of dealing with the how the Internet works and intelligence gathering. They just wanted a fast fix with would allow them to avoid the messy process of dealing with telecoms and when they can force them to reveal information about their users. And the answer for all of it simply being "we have a secure judge that oversees all of it, so its totally ok and above board" is insane.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I really want to know what was so "golden" about that age that even mildly relates to the complex issues of the economy today. I mean, it was better for businesses and small government because no one gave a shit about poor people or laborers, so maybe that part was "golden".
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
But how does today's GOP feel about Regulation nowadays, there's the sticking point.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
But how does today's GOP feel about Regulation nowadays, there's the sticking point.
Or massive government investment into infrastructure. If Ron Paul wants update the rail system and spend government money on creating alternative power sources nation wide, I am all about what he is selling.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
In comparative terms, they're how the US turned from a debtor nation to a creditor nation, financed immense amounts of economic growth in industry, and put the US, by the end of WWII, up as holding 4/5ths of the world's industrial capacity (between itself and occupied territory), meanwhile destroying the European economies that were our competitors.
The second Industrial Revolution was not a uniquely American phenomenon, nor a result of US policies.
The true golden age, in comparative terms, is really the immediate post-WWII years.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
you do not seem to have a clue about making a concise argument that amounts to more than handwaving. for that, you would need to structure your method of inquiry: especially in regards to the questions, how is a golden age determined, and relative to what because by cherrypicking accomplishments any time frame in the history of the world can be made a golden age, because humans have the paradoxical characteristic to do stuff all the time. The second half of the 15th century in europe revolutionized our understanding of the world fundamentally, the introduction and propagation of printing did more for human civilisation than railroads in the US, and still there was inquisitions, the black plague and serfs toiled under feudal lords everywhere.
Your choice of hand picked technological improvements fitting your narrative is in no way selfexplanatory or canon in the economic field. Ignoring civil and social improvements to the aspect of economic interaction or the lack thereof shows your narrow understanding.
Edit:
The true golden age, in comparative terms, is really the immediate post-WWII years.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
you do not seem to have a clue about making a concise argument that amounts to more than handwaving. for that, you would need to structure your method of inquiry: especially in regards to the questions, how is a golden age determined, and relative to what because by cherrypicking accomplishments any time frame in the history of the world can be made a golden age, because humans have the paradoxical characteristic to do stuff all the time. The second half of the 15th century in europe revolutionized our understanding of the world fundamentally, the introduction and propagation of printing did more for human civilisation than railroads in the US, and still there was inquisitions, the black plague and serfs toiled under feudal lords everywhere.
Your choice of hand picked technological improvements fitting your narrative is in no way selfexplanatory or canon in the economic field. Ignoring civil and social improvements to the aspect of economic interaction or the lack thereof shows your narrow understanding.
The true golden age, in comparative terms, is really the immediate post-WWII years.
exactly as i said earlier.
Ok, name some bad things that weren't actively improved in the 1880's - 1913. Labor unions started and made progress fighting for workers rights. Medical technology improved greatly, with the rise of both Germ Theory and anesthetics.
There can be more than one golden age. And if you think one or two bad things ruin a possible golden age, the immediate post-WW2 years absolutely do not fit the bill as a golden age. Racism was just as bad as ever. The Soviets threatened the American domination you insist existed, going so far as stealing the plans for the atomic bomb in 1947.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
you do not seem to have a clue about making a concise argument that amounts to more than handwaving. for that, you would need to structure your method of inquiry: especially in regards to the questions, how is a golden age determined, and relative to what because by cherrypicking accomplishments any time frame in the history of the world can be made a golden age, because humans have the paradoxical characteristic to do stuff all the time. The second half of the 15th century in europe revolutionized our understanding of the world fundamentally, the introduction and propagation of printing did more for human civilisation than railroads in the US, and still there was inquisitions, the black plague and serfs toiled under feudal lords everywhere.
Your choice of hand picked technological improvements fitting your narrative is in no way selfexplanatory or canon in the economic field. Ignoring civil and social improvements to the aspect of economic interaction or the lack thereof shows your narrow understanding.
Edit:
The true golden age, in comparative terms, is really the immediate post-WWII years.
exactly as i said earlier.
Ok, name some bad things that weren't actively improved in the 1880's - 1913. Labor unions started and made progress fighting for workers rights. Medical technology improved greatly, with the rise of both Germ Theory and anesthetics.
There can be more than one golden age. And if you think one or two bad things ruin a possible golden age, the immediate post-WW2 years absolutely do not fit the bill as a golden age. Racism was just as bad as ever. The Soviets threatened the American domination you insist existed, going so far as stealing the plans for the atomic bomb in 1947.
You still do not get it. You used golden age comparative to today, when it was only mildy better than the time before and worse than the time after it. As i said: humans do stuff, picking a long enough timeframe and looking at its greatest accomplishments it will always be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But then you learn there is more to history and you see a context around that time, and you realize oh it was just part of a long progress, and every measure now is better than back then, but somehow you religiously idolize that timeframe because it is so long ago that nobody has any conception of how much worse everyone was off back then compared to now just like the german romanticism idolizing the middle ages.
As always, it is always easy to idolize eras you did not live in and there are few people alive who can reference them. The specific era of the 1880's – 1913 was amazingly prosperous for the US on the back of expanding into new, unused sections of the US, providing cheap housing and land for a large number of people. All on the back of government spending and land we stole from the people who were on it originally.
That really isn't applicable as we don’t have the ability to just claim more land. Unless we try to claim large parts of Canada for reasons.
Why is this not being talked about? You should not want the government to collect your dick pics! Make some noise!
Who the fuck cares; seriously, there's so much shit and dick pics being produced at any one minute, do you think they'd hire some poor NSA sod to go through them all? Instagram would scar him for life. Let alone grindr...
In all seriousness, I remain pretty unconvinced. When the volume of data is so massive, the NSA only bothers checking emails/pictures/tweets/whatever that trigger key phrases that lead them to believe there may be recruitment by ISIL etc;, and they sure as hell don't have time to listen in on every phone conversation unless they have suspicion to.
Then you there are private companies that consistently log your data and your internet footprint like Google: it's not quite the same, certainly, since the data is aggregated for the most part (though if you've peaked at analytics you can get quite alot of detail in terms of connection), but overall, it's not necessarily invasive.
I continue to find this a non-issue in my life unless you're planning to join ISIL or someshit.
Also: YAY, Rand Paul has joined. Now I can popcorn all the stupid-ass shit he'll say. Oh please oh please oh please, talk about the gold standard again like Ron. I need a laugh.
On April 08 2015 01:49 Millitron wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:45 puerk wrote:
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
That kinda was the golden age though. We were more prosperous than ever before, and trust busting was in full swing.
Haha...wait, you're serious.
American prosperity was borne upon the backs of endless arms shipments to the Entente in 1918 and the massive amounts of money we made, plus Europe committing collective economic suicide twice in a row.
He said 1880 to 1913. WW1 was years off.
I know: he was being dismissive when he referred to 1880-1913 as the golden age.
So why'd you bring up the world wars? They're pretty irrelevant.
And I don't know how you can say 1880-1913 wasn't a golden age. The rail system expanded to cover the whole country. The nation became electrified. The nation switched from coal and wood fuel to oil. The automotive industry began. The Panama Canal was built. And we found a happy balance between total free market and regulation. The FDA was founded. Trusts were busted.
you do not seem to have a clue about making a concise argument that amounts to more than handwaving. for that, you would need to structure your method of inquiry: especially in regards to the questions, how is a golden age determined, and relative to what because by cherrypicking accomplishments any time frame in the history of the world can be made a golden age, because humans have the paradoxical characteristic to do stuff all the time. The second half of the 15th century in europe revolutionized our understanding of the world fundamentally, the introduction and propagation of printing did more for human civilisation than railroads in the US, and still there was inquisitions, the black plague and serfs toiled under feudal lords everywhere.
Your choice of hand picked technological improvements fitting your narrative is in no way selfexplanatory or canon in the economic field. Ignoring civil and social improvements to the aspect of economic interaction or the lack thereof shows your narrow understanding.
Edit:
The true golden age, in comparative terms, is really the immediate post-WWII years.
exactly as i said earlier.
Ok, name some bad things that weren't actively improved in the 1880's - 1913. Labor unions started and made progress fighting for workers rights. Medical technology improved greatly, with the rise of both Germ Theory and anesthetics.
There can be more than one golden age. And if you think one or two bad things ruin a possible golden age, the immediate post-WW2 years absolutely do not fit the bill as a golden age. Racism was just as bad as ever. The Soviets threatened the American domination you insist existed, going so far as stealing the plans for the atomic bomb in 1947.
US Real Per Capita GDP from 1870–2001 The following is Angus Maddison’s data on real per capita GDP from 1870 to 2001, with my calculations of annual and decadal growth rates. The estimates for the 19th century come from Balke and Gordon (1989), and later data from standard sources:
Average Decadal Real Per Capita Growth Rates Average Growth Rate 1871–1880: 1.64% Average Growth Rate 1881–1890: 1.65% Average Growth Rate 1891–1900: 2.04% Average Growth Rate 1901–1910: 2.13% Average Growth Rate 1911–1920: 1.28% Average Growth Rate 1921–1930: 1.27% Average Growth Rate 1931–1940: 1.54% Average Growth Rate 1941–1950: 3.87% Average Growth Rate 1951–1960: 1.75% Average Growth Rate 1961–1970: 2.88% Average Growth Rate 1971–1980: 2.16% Average Growth Rate 1981–1990: 2.26% Average Growth Rate 1991–2000: 1.94%
....
BIBLIOGRAPHY Balke, N. S., and R. J. Gordon, 1989. “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National Product: Methodology and New Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 38–92.
Maddison, Angus. 2003. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing, Paris.
TBH, I don't think you understand the difference between absolute and relative gains, but k.
By pure economic statistics, the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. In terms of military, it was also essentially a paper tiger, after having absorbed incredible losses in WWII and their manpower was at the dregs. The Soviets had no means to threaten the use of an atomic bomb until the 1970s, while all major Soviet centers of production and urbanized zones could be hit by US bombers and missiles based in Europe and Turkey. The Soviet Union was able to survive WWII purely on the back of unrelenting amounts of US economic and material aid. US policy in the 1950s and early 1960s was based on egregious overestimation of Soviet strength comparative to the US. The US, immediately following WWII, was the colossus that bestrode the world.
You're pointing to specific instances of history and saying "OH WOW, MUCH ADVANCED, OH WOW MUCH TERRIBLE", when that fails to take into consideration 1) a long-term view of history, 2) a comparative view of history, and 3) is terrible historiography.
I could point out that the post-WWII era was the dawning of the nuclear age, where we saw the proliferation of the automobile and the building of the Interstate system (far more significant for mass transportation than the railroad ever was), the post-WWII economic boom that saw pretty much all the modern amenities US homes are accustomed develop and the suburban community form, the dawn of the civil rights era, yadayadayada, but that means absolute jack shite; I'm just cherrypicking examples without understanding the broader context.
WASHINGTON -- Tom Steyer's climate-focused political group is already gearing up for the 2016 presidential race, announcing on Monday a new effort that will focus on putting Republican candidates on the defense when it comes to global warming.
NextGen Climate's chief strategist, Chris Lehane, said in a call with reporters that the group's mission heading into 2016 is to "disqualify" candidates who deny that climate change is real or caused by human activity by proving that "they don't have what it takes to be president." The effort will be called Hot Seat, and NextGen Climate says it will involve media and on-the-ground campaigns in key electoral states aimed at linking Republican deniers to the Koch brothers and other interests that seek to undermine climate science.
The idea, NextGen says, is to force Republican candidates who are skeptical of climate change to defend their views right out of the gate.
"If you're in a position that is different from 97 percent of scientists, that does raise basic competency questions in terms of whether people are going to want to give you the keys to the White House," said Lehane.
Their first target, Lehane said, is Rand Paul, who is expected to announce his candidacy Tuesday in Louisville, Kentucky. The group is planning to hit Paul with a stunt involving a "lie detector test" to force him to go on the record about his views on climate change, and will also follow the candidate to Iowa. Paul has previously questioned the consensus view among scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate, but has also tried to moderate his stance somewhat in recent months.
The group intends to portray Republican candidates who deny climate change as being subservient to the will of major donors like the Koch brothers, the conservative fossil-fuel billionaires. "[The Kochs] have acquired the Republican Party and purposed it," said Lehane. "Now they have these various Republican candidates saying they don't believe in the science."
These "golden ages" can only be such in the minds of white males. Any minority or woman can't look at either of those times and call it a "golden age".
It's ridiculous to claim pre 1920 a 'golden age' because millions of Americans couldn't even vote... These golden ages weren't just built on the things mentioned they were built on the systematic abuse/neglect of other Americans.
Even post WWII the prosperity was built at least in part by denying qualified black people jobs or paying them piss poor wages in order to enrich some other white man.
Pretending America was built off of honest hard work is one of the saddest lies we consistently reinforce. Sure there was honest hard work also, but America was only what it was because millions of people were systematically excluded from joining in enjoying the bounty of their hard work.
EPT
