|
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. |
On August 11 2016 07:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 06:35 puerk wrote:
I am interested in why kwark keeps ignoring the aggregate picture in his argument for savings on a personal responsibility level
the situation is: there is a large incentive to save, there is government funding to match, and employer matching aswell
but
those incentives only exist because the assumed rate of use for them is very very low
furthermore: there is no demand for capital, there are no worthwhile investments for the huge amounts of capital you want to see saved, the system only works for a few, not because it is set up unfavourably for individuals, but because it has a limited aggregate demand
in a global economy where interbank interest rates and government bonds are below 0 as they are in europe, advocating for more saving on the individual basis to somehow improve the financial situation of all (not a single) individuals is doomed to fail by default
yes it works for you, but only because of the other 250m that currently are not doing it to the extent you advocate This argument is essentially "sure, people can invest now but what happens when every single plus EV investment is completely filled, what then?". It's absurd.So for an investment to be worth doing it would need an output of greater value than the input. So for there to be literally none of these left it would require every infrastructure project to be fully funded, every educational project to be fully funded, all scientific progress to already be discovered, everything of value that could be invented to be invented, medical progress to the point that more lives would be wasted trying to progress it further than would save. In short we would need infinite money to invest and perfectly efficient allocation to meet the preconditions for your problem. Let me know when it happens. Until then, as long as there is at least one bridge that would cost, say, $100,000 to repair today but $100,001 to repair in 10 years, investments will be plus EV (assuming inflation adjusted).
That isn't the argument at all. Macroeconomics is not simply the sum of microeconomic transactions evaluated at t=0. Remember what I said a few pages ago about vicious circles? You are ignoring things like risk and common sense. Let me know when someone invests $100,000 of real money in a real project with real risk for a .001% return.
|
On August 11 2016 09:28 KwarK wrote:
I'm still surprised Putin let the whole shooting down of a jet thing go. Trump would have made a wall around Turkey for that.
I expected it to last about three months to a year. Long enough to show Turkey that that was very bad on its part, but short enough that it wouldn't ruin economic ties in the long term. There was definitely a feeling that it would really suck if bad relations went on for a long time.
What surprised me is that pretty much no one took Turkey's side on this one. NATO paid lip service to Turkey but secretly all of the countries basically universally agreed Turkey was wrong.
|
Canada11606 Posts
On August 11 2016 10:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:
ROFL its official. He's trying to lose the election. There is no other explanation.
Well, I guess he can grab up the Alex Jones followers, NWO conspiracy theorists, and Obama is the Anti-Christ crowd with that sort of rhetoric... although given the fact that Trump is part of the moneyed elite, I'm not sure why Trump isn't considered part of the NWO. Maybe not enough Jewish connections.
|
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly.
|
On August 11 2016 10:33 Falling wrote:Well, I guess he can grab up the Alex Jones followers, NWO conspiracy theorists, and Obama is the Anti-Christ crowd with that sort of rhetoric... although given the fact that Trump is part of the moneyed elite, I'm not sure why Trump isn't considered part of the NWO. Maybe not enough Jewish connections.
He's got all those people on his side as is. He's just insuring no one with any brain power will vote for him. Obama is by and large liked and anyone with any sense knows this is a crock of shit. He's intentionally throwing. Report him for feeding!
|
That Trump can be the wealthiest presidential candidate in history, and still have people who see him as the anti-establishment candidate, is certainly one of life's greatest ironies.
|
On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly.
We having Trump supporters have to interpret or add caveats to his ramblings yet again? Aren't you guys tired yet? At what point does he mean what he actually says?
|
On August 11 2016 10:37 LegalLord wrote:
That Trump can be the wealthiest presidential candidate in history, and still have people who see him as the anti-establishment candidate, is certainly one of life's greatest ironies.
Especially considering how often he has donated politically.
|
United States44283 Posts
On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly.
Ah, the old "what I like about Trump is that what he says isn't what he means".
|
On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly.
If Trump's use of language becomes even halfway acceptable the damage is already done. "Isis is honouring Obama" ?
Ah yes, let's just pretend that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim again, that isn't troublesome at all
|
On August 11 2016 10:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly. We having Trump supporters have to interpret or add caveats to his ramblings yet again? Aren't you guys tired yet? At what point does he mean what he actually says?
Not even a Trump supporter. The intended context is pretty damn obvious if you know what standard anti-Obama Republican rhetoric looks like.
|
Canada11606 Posts
On August 11 2016 10:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly. We having Trump supporters have to interpret or add caveats to his ramblings yet again? Aren't you guys tired yet? At what point does he mean what he actually says?
I don't think Legal is a Trump supporter as such. I also think that it is very likely that Trump means that because of the chaos in the middle east during the Obama administration, it's all Obama's fault, hence 'founder'. However, Trump is really, really bad at making nuanced statements. If something could be said accurately and carefully, he most likely give a wildly inaccurate, bombastic, absolutist statement in the search of making a 'strong' statement. It is very rarely actually 'strong', but certainly bombastic. The way he words this statement plays straight into NWO conspiracy theorists whether he means to or not. He is just bad at this stuff.
|
On August 11 2016 10:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly. We having Trump supporters have to interpret or add caveats to his ramblings yet again? Aren't you guys tired yet? At what point does he mean what he actually says?
There's nothing to interpret, he said many times before that Obama's policies created ISIS. Which is stupid enough in its own right given that the mess was done by the previous administration and both Clinton & Trump supported the Iraq war. No need to pretend he meant Obama literally founded ISIS.
|
On August 11 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 10:40 On_Slaught wrote:On August 11 2016 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, that's a middle grade Trumpism at best. It's pretty clear that he means it indirectly. We having Trump supporters have to interpret or add caveats to his ramblings yet again? Aren't you guys tired yet? At what point does he mean what he actually says? Not even a Trump supporter. The intended context is pretty damn obvious if you know what standard anti-Obama Republican rhetoric looks like.
Yup. It is.
Doesn't make it less idiotic. It's a rethoric that i wouldn't use in the pub after 6 pints. And what makes it even dumber is, that if you want to go with the already idiotic notion of "president X founded ISIS", you'd need to call out the one who actually is responsible. And that'd be a republican. Lets not forget that the IS is a former splinter group of al-quaeda.
|
People really need to stop underselling these things as random insults. These things stick because Obama is a black guy whose second name is Hussein. It wouldn't work with George Bush although in that case it would at least make for a plausible argument. It's like pretending that "cuck" is just a generic insult while it's actually a racial slur. Those rants coming from Trump almost always tie into some stereotype against minority groups.
|
Cuck is a racial slur? Oo
|
Yes. SP Law center
It's strongly related to the idea of impotent white guys having their women taken away by black guys. Why do you think the threat of rapey refugees and mexicans sticks so well? The "primitive savage stealing your white woman" trope is as old as history.
|
Trump is trying to push aside his earlier clinton judge remark, but he is right in a sense.
isis spread like wildfire after the arab spring. They had no better conditioned ground to grow than the one our president oversaw. Obama pulled out of Iraq, in what many consider a political move during his second presidential campaign. And when they first sprouted, he did nothing. His entire foreign policy in the middle east is to have as little involvement as possible. . . he thought that they would find their niche alongside of the taliban and nothing more. Just last week they captured three thousand fleeing civilians.+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 11 2016 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:Yes. SP Law centerIt's strongly related to the idea of impotent white guys having their women taken away by black guys.
That's pretty "buzzfeedy".
Cuckold simply means you get turned on by having your wife drilled by someone else.
That's it. There's no "black dude" in there.
edit: of course, buzzfeed made up their own definition of the term. I guess that's a racial slur then.
|
Canada11606 Posts
I suspect it really depends. If the same people also talk about white genocide, then like as not the term is also meant racially. Regardless I still hate the word and the sneering attitude behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U6TN2bU.jpg)
