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 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable Austrians, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on heterodox economics: they're a heterodox for a reason.
There is a reason I was/am utterly adamant against both of the Pauls, and you can really sum it up in two words: gold standard.
Yep. When this election cycle Ted Cruz brought back the gold standard idea, I facepalmed really hard.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, will become the highest-ranking American official to pay tribute to the victims of the first nuclear attack in history when he visits the peace memorial park in Hiroshima next month.
Japan’s government ended weeks of speculation with the announcement that Kerry and other G7 foreign ministers will lay flowers at a cenotaph to the victims on the sidelines of their summit in the western Japanese city next week.
About 80,000 people were killed instantly when the Enola Gay, a US B-29 bomber, dropped a 15-kilotonne nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on the morning of 6 August 1945. More than 60,000 others died from their injuries and exposure to radiation by the end of the year.
Officials from Japan and the US may wait to gauge the reception to Kerry’s visit before deciding whether Barack Obama should follow him to Hiroshima during the G7 leader summit in Ise-Shima at the end of May.
It is not clear how Kerry’s visit will be received in the US, where the prevailing view is that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and of Nagasaki three days later, helped prevent a costly land battle in Japan and hastened the end of the Pacific war.
Obama, who spoke of his desire for a nuclear-free world during a speech in Prague in 2009, has not been to Hiroshima on any of his three visits to Japan as president.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone?
On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome
Pithy, and I suppose an accurate description of your issue knowledge.
What pray tell should our economic, fiscal, and monetary policies be based off of then? Wishful thinking?
Rational thought, as corum already proposed.
And rational thought pertaining to the complexities of taxation, government budgets, monetary policy, and currency valuation is...?
On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome
Pithy, and I suppose an accurate description of your issue knowledge.
What pray tell should our economic, fiscal, and monetary policies be based off of then? Wishful thinking?
Why not, it's already what most of economics is. PS : I have taken very "serious" orthodox economics courses. People like to mock political "science" because of its name, but at least the little course I took of that had a clear link to reality and history. Still, having Patrick Artus in front of me derivating lagrangians is one of the most important thing that make me a definitive leftist.
I also have taken several serious economics courses, including one with a former Mexican central banker, so I seriously disagree with the perceived disconnect between the "dismal science" and reality. Then again my professors were practically minded, and outside of that damnable game theory course, were very keen on linking the theory to practice.
Patrick Artus? Never heard of him, assuming he's a French economist of some fame. Any publications you would recommend? Assuming no English language ones, but my French is rusty and could use some work.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
That's obviously a simplistic misrepresentation, and you're not answering the question. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation? And how did the potential negatives compare to the potential positives? You're the one who was asking why Obama and Hillary supported the agreement.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone?
Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return.
Hey, here's something that addresses Bernie's understanding of Foreign Policy, he just gave an exclusive interview to the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today (RT) (same channel that claims that Panama Papers is a CIA conspiracy + Show Spoiler +
What? Giving RT an interview isn't that big a deal. Heck, I've helped write a published response to a reporter from Novosti regarding China's military budget.
On April 05 2016 23:50 zatic wrote: It's been like 2 weeks since the last trumpism, this is getting boring. Where is my entertainment.
China has issued sanctions on North Korea. That's relatively big news.
It's unsurprising given the policy shifts since Xi Jinping reached office and the changing attitudes towards North Korea in China over the past decade.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone?
Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return.
I said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about.
Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking.
i mean bernie is immensely useful for a guy like putin. it's like the rt candidate when you consider their reporting on the issues. western finance being blamed for fucking over russia etc.
western finance does fuck over russia, but it's helping putin and friends in that endeavor. check out london real estate market and uk offshoring industry
On April 06 2016 00:14 Lord Tolkien wrote: What? Giving RT an interview isn't that big a deal. Heck, I've helped write a published response to a reporter from Novosti regarding China's military budget.
Was that before or after it's rebirth under Putin's control?
The problem is that it shows the would be commander-in-chief doesn't understand which are real news agencies and which are foreign propaganda channels. There's a reason why other US politicians shun RT.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone?
Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return.
I said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about.
Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking.
So you're saying that you cannot find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" and thus your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false.
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done
Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone?
Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return.
I said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about.
Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking.
So you're saying that you cannot find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" and thus your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false.
I just did. What do you think the US got out of the deal?
On April 06 2016 00:14 Lord Tolkien wrote: What? Giving RT an interview isn't that big a deal. Heck, I've helped write a published response to a reporter from Novosti regarding China's military budget.
Was that before or after it's rebirth under Putin's control?
The problem is that it shows the would be commander-in-chief doesn't understand which are real news agencies and which are foreign propaganda channels. There's a reason why other US politicians shun RT.
Novosti? Was like a year ago. Wrote a response to a few questions they asked my supervisor about this. Was nothing nefarious.
If you mean RT, I personally don't see the interview being overly concerning.
PayPal will no longer move forward with its planned new global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina, after the state passed a law that eliminates anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gays and bisexuals and keeps transgender people from using the bathroom of their chosen gender.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion in Charlotte,” a statement released by PayPal President and CEO Dan Schulman said Monday.
Schulman said the California-based company will now seek a new location for the global operations center, which was announced just two weeks ago.
“This decision reflects PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect,” Schulman continued in the statement. “Our decision is a clear and unambiguous one … As a company that is committed to the principle that everyone deserves to live without fear of discrimination simply for being who they are, becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.”
According to PayPal, the center would have employed 400 skilled workers.
EPT
