EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 446
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 04:30 sam!zdat wrote: ^nah it's cool. As long as people want to buy things everyone will have a job. Kwark said so. Say's law for jobs. It's Science! Wouldn't say's law for jobs be as long as someone is willing to work he'll have a job? e.g. the supply of jobs would create the demand for jobs. The way you have it worded is the opposite, a demand pull rather than a supply push framework. Not that anyone follows say's law anyways. Though, I think there's ample evidence of a lack of supply in a few key areas of the economy (housing & energy / energy efficiency). | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 16 2013 13:15 ziggurat wrote: Hey Doublereed, I thought I would never agree with you about anything but here I think you're making sense. My wife is a teacher though so maybe I'm biased ... I think the biggest problem with merit pay is that it's hard to measure a teacher's merit. The class does well, but that could just be because the teacher is in a district where all the parents make their kids spend two hours a night on homework. Classes aren't that big so there's really not that big a sample size. I would totally support some kind of merit pay for teachers but only if it was demonstrably on real merit, instead of who the principal happens to like. I don't know why you thought we would never agree. You can pretty much assume that I'm an ACLU fanatic. They're one of the most consistent and strongest defenders of people's rights, and their website is good at explaining things with admirable clarity. Anytime you agree with the ACLU on issues you'll probably agree with me. But if you notice, there's always people on the other side of the ACLU in their court cases (whether it's discrimination, privacy, due process, or free speech). Those are the guys that argue against people's rights. Those are the bad guys. Anyway, yea. I think teachers are just disrespected in society. One thing you see in all societies that have good education (Norway, Japan, etc.), is that they show some damn respect to teachers. The standardized testing and those problems I generally think is minor in comparison. It's also one of the major reasons why I hate Chris Christie. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote: yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake It's easy to be a critic. It's harder to provide working alternatives. Commies haven't been too impressive with their alternatives so far, have they? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
you don't get to ignore a problem because you don't have a solution, no matter how well it works out for ostriches | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 06:56 sam!zdat wrote: don't make me send you more angry pms jonny you don't get to ignore a problem because you don't have a solution, no matter how well it works out for ostriches I don't ignore problems. I try to find solutions that work rather than "solutions" that do more harm than good. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On September 17 2013 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's easy to be a critic. It's harder to provide working alternatives. Commies haven't been too impressive with their alternatives so far, have they? Not really. Here, I'll have a go: While jobs have historically followed the model of Say's law, modern technology which exponentially increases the per worker productivity has shifted the balance towards job stagnation. BAM | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit @below: I apologize for sinking to your level | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 07:00 sam!zdat wrote: keep telling yourself that Good comeback. I'll one up you with "I am rubber you are glue..." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it just shows that politics can work to change the economic structure. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On September 17 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Good comeback. I'll one up you with "I am rubber you are glue..." "...and Hitler wasn't so he killed the jews." Is that how it goes? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 06:59 Jormundr wrote: Not really. Here, I'll have a go: While jobs have historically followed the model of Say's law, modern technology which exponentially increases the per worker productivity has shifted the balance towards job stagnation. BAM Sorry, I didn't mean an alternative to Say's law. We already don't use Say's law. I meant real alternatives to real economic activity, not alternative stylized theories. Also, modern tech isn't increasing productivity faster than older tech did, as far as I can tell. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
A Victory in the Battle To Make Banks Boring If you like your banks boring, well capitalized and also contributing to the real economy, you will be cheered by yesterday's quarterly review from the Bank for International Settlements, which contains a special feature on "How have banks adjusted to higher capital requirements?" That's a much-discussed question with at least two possible bad answers. The banks argue against higher capital requirements by saying it would force them to cut back on lending. I wonder whether higher (risk-weighted) capital requirements will lead banks to just monkey with the models for their risk-weighted assets. But the BIS's answer is pretty solidly the good answer: Banks have increased capital ratios by retaining more earnings, without cutting back on lending or monkeying too much with the models ... Link This is an example of what I would consider a good, workable fix. Well capitalized banks may not be as fun for bankers, but it's good for pretty much everyone else. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 17 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Link This is an example of what I would consider a good, workable fix. Well capitalized banks may not be as fun for bankers, but it's good for pretty much everyone else. Wonder how much of that is voluntary and how much of that is, "There are no emerging/growing markets to stick all our money in..." | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote: Wonder how much of that is voluntary and how much of that is, "There are no emerging/growing markets to stick all our money in..." A lot of it is demanded by new regulatory requirements. If there was just no where for them to put their money they could be leveraging via issuing dividends / stock buybacks. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 17 2013 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote: A lot of it is demanded by new regulatory requirements. If there was just no where for them to put their money they could be leveraging via issuing dividends / stock buybacks. I thought the requirements weren't on the books yet... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 09:19 aksfjh wrote: I thought the requirements weren't on the books yet... I think Basel 2.5 went into effect in 2012 (source) and Basel 3 starts to roll out in 2014 (source). I'm not sure about other regulatory changes. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2013/09/16/forbes-announces-its-32nd-annual-forbes-400-ranking-of-the-richest-americans/ these motherfuckers are nothing but feudal overlords. Expropriate the expropriators | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 11:05 sam!zdat wrote: qe is free money for pigs http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2013/09/16/forbes-announces-its-32nd-annual-forbes-400-ranking-of-the-richest-americans/ these motherfuckers are nothing but feudal overlords. Expropriate the expropriators OK, how and to whom? | ||
| ||
