|
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 January 06 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2014 08:59 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 19:40 Crushinator wrote:On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:
[quote]Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending.
It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found. And thus I take issue with you. Who sits in judgment of what are satisfactory results? Appoint a board? Vote in Lord Crushinator with the scepter? I mean, even in your own statements, you say some people are unable to get medical treatment. In fact, they do get medical treatment here, it's just costs that we're discussing. They're perfectly able. Forever government proponents will claim to do better and do worse, just as you believe the danger is free market proponents doing worse and a government idea would be better. It's still a muddled affair. I see no reason a king sitting in judgement of adequate results will not contrive the reasoning for a government outcome citing whatever he wishes to say is wrong. I see a lot of misguided government takeover in the past citing inadequate results--and promptly establishes a government monopoly based on privilege. See steel tariffs, davis bacon act, interstate commerce commission on railroads, ICC on trucking as well. They only get it if it's immediate/life-threatening. Long-term necessary healthcare isn't given to those who can't afford it. Furthermore, you keep mentioning examples of monopolies going wrong here, but what about the healthcare industry itself? Numerous countries have better healthcare systems than we do with more government involvement, and those are real-world examples of working healthcare systems. Just look at Canada, The U.K,, the Low Countries, Germany, or Scandinavia.
I don't see what you mean by long-term necessary healthcare isn't given. You have any reputable sources to cite from to prove this reality? It seems like a pre-existing condition argument phrased differently (state of over-regulated mal-regulated US health insurance market is involved if that's the case).
If you want to mention some monopolies then feel free. If you want to point to some segment of health insurance or medical health providers that is monopolistic in practice, please do. Otherwise, I think we're just back at comparing health systems, costs, research, availability of care, tax burden. I mentioned monopolies as a specific case against some person or groups of person sitting in judgement of what is "satisfactory" and what is "unacceptable" to prompt a government takeover (and particularly the related topic, what happens when a partial government solution granting monopolistic power becomes unacceptable). Let me know if you wish to discuss appointing a public group of individuals or an individual deciding which industries to bind and the likely results and/or problems.
|
On January 06 2014 14:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 06 2014 08:59 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 19:40 Crushinator wrote:On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith.
Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found. And thus I take issue with you. Who sits in judgment of what are satisfactory results? Appoint a board? Vote in Lord Crushinator with the scepter? I mean, even in your own statements, you say some people are unable to get medical treatment. In fact, they do get medical treatment here, it's just costs that we're discussing. They're perfectly able. Forever government proponents will claim to do better and do worse, just as you believe the danger is free market proponents doing worse and a government idea would be better. It's still a muddled affair. I see no reason a king sitting in judgement of adequate results will not contrive the reasoning for a government outcome citing whatever he wishes to say is wrong. I see a lot of misguided government takeover in the past citing inadequate results--and promptly establishes a government monopoly based on privilege. See steel tariffs, davis bacon act, interstate commerce commission on railroads, ICC on trucking as well. They only get it if it's immediate/life-threatening. Long-term necessary healthcare isn't given to those who can't afford it. Furthermore, you keep mentioning examples of monopolies going wrong here, but what about the healthcare industry itself? Numerous countries have better healthcare systems than we do with more government involvement, and those are real-world examples of working healthcare systems. Just look at Canada, The U.K,, the Low Countries, Germany, or Scandinavia. I don't see what you mean by long-term necessary healthcare isn't given. You have any reputable sources to cite from to prove this reality? It seems like a pre-existing condition argument phrased differently (state of over-regulated mal-regulated US health insurance market is involved if that's the case). If you want to mention some monopolies then feel free. If you want to point to some segment of health insurance or medical health providers that is monopolistic in practice, please do. Otherwise, I think we're just back at comparing health systems, costs, research, availability of care, tax burden. I mentioned monopolies as a specific case against some person or groups of person sitting in judgement of what is "satisfactory" and what is "unacceptable" to prompt a government takeover (and particularly the related topic, what happens when a partial government solution granting monopolistic power becomes unacceptable). Let me know if you wish to discuss appointing a public group of individuals or an individual deciding which industries to bind and the likely results and/or problems.
Yeah stratos you dumb fuck. Your entire argument rests on the the idea of cost effectiveness, which is meaningless in an ideal free or communist market.
SLASH SARCASM
|
On January 06 2014 09:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +I said nothing in the kind. Invent your own conversation partner if you want to argue something unsaid. I used creative destruction to elaborate on why Kwark's wealth redistribution falls flat. Jobs are constantly changing and a government does not have access to what the next job market or product will be. It can only forcibly take and move, and beyond the impoverished, it is a destructive process that hurts incentive. Again, find yourself somebody else to talk about creative destruction and economic cycles.
I suppose everybody is blind to you. You will not analyze the argument for its merits. Since you refuse this analysis, you can only group philosophers into "blindly in love with the market" and "not capitalist." Sorry if the proponents of individual liberty don't fit in your neatly arranged capitalist stereotypes. I'm with Mills, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Hands off, man. Taking my money for the purposes of benevolence for my own good, as is the case of mandated standards of insurance in Obamacare, is not a legitimate exercise of state power.
This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. Here is the problem obviously. You don't even understand what you say... When you talk about creative destruction you talk about cycle, don't you understands it ? If you need to destroy to reallocate ressources, then it means there is a moment when you destroy (the slump) and a moment where you reallocate (the recovery). It goes against the idea of market equilibrium, the basis of all free marketist economic (because if the market is in an equilibrium, it is both stable and efficient). I'll quote you to make sure : Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. The "free" economy engage in creative destruction : it means the "free" economy has economic cycle and get out of slumps through the process of creative destruction. I was actually analyzing "the argument for its merits" but you sadly didn't understands it. The existence of economic cycle is a justification for wealth redistribution : why should we not try to flatten the cycle ? Why should we not try to permit people to acquire enough knowledge and education so that they can move from jobs to jobs faster, why should we not help people who suffer from the slump ? For what reason should we actually let the market run free while it is destroying jobs and corporations ? On what ground can you say that the government will always have a negative impact on the economy if the economy, by itself, needs destruction to move on ? I agree with the principal of creative destruction, the same free force destroying industries as creating new ones, in its allocation of scarce resources. That ebb and flow is certainly there. That is a very narrow cycle present in a much more complex overall economic cycle. I won't list them all here, ask Jonny or others, but there's the credit cycle, the interaction of government's lever-pulling for interest and monetary supply, international markets supply and demand, just to name a few. Flattening the cycle is simplistic if you only analyze resource allocation in the context of creative destruction ... it does not occur in the vacuum and every other cycling effect is in there to a larger or smaller degree. I don't believe in merit by the way, nor in free market. You can believe in whatever you want, jesus christ, merit, free market or even your own intelligence, but please don't try to force me into discussion your god with you.
Finally, this is the third time you've asked your question and I will try not to give you a stupid answer. How about a mixed regime where we use the benefit of a "free market economy" (expression that doesn't mean a thing, but you only use vague expressiong, like capitalism, free , market, freedom, that's your modus operandi, I use the idea of free market economy here in the strict sense to refer to a situation where prices appears through the confrontation of offer and demand by opposition to a system where price are determined by a central government) but still control its problem by reallocating ressources in specific key topics - healthcare, unemployment, inequalities, etc.
I'll not even try to question the idea of changing our property right (most notably, there are discussion about the idea of changing the "usus and abusus" part) - the property right of the environment and the property right of the means of production - to change our society for the better. I don't want to start a meaningless discussion.
And again you don't know shit about France, so please... First off, I thank you for presenting an alternative, your preferable alternative. You want a price system based on supply and demand (or negotiation between purchaser and seller, if you like it that way) ... but not a price system when it comes to healthcare, unemployment, inequalities. Namely, if somebody other than the purchaser and seller comes in, it is them setting/influencing prices on healthcare. We're already down the rabbit hole with inequalities ... how much is too unequal ... how much will the rich pass their tax burden into their selling prices to redistribute to the poor .. but I'll give it a rest since I did get an answer on my third try. I mean, I take it your inequality cure is different from Hollande's, or maybe to phrase it closer to your repetitions, "Hollande doesn't know shit about France, so please..." I'm trying to quell my political curiosity if a 75% tax on those earning €1,000,000 is compatible with your semi-market system if you had the reigns in france (aka a tax of this kind in an economic system similar to today's). The extent of measures you would take to fix inequality is of interest. Thank you for the discussion.
Here is why I said don't talk about France. In France we all hate Hollande (he has the worst approval rating out of all president since the beginning of the fifth republic), and especially leftist, because he didn't do anything he was elected for. The 75 % taxation rate on those earning more than 1 000 000 € has never been done for some bullshit reason, and now he changed it from a taxation on revenu to a taxation on corporation... Best way to help employment right ?
He was elected on strong idea of fiscal reform, and he didn't do it. He was elected saying that "finance is the ennemy", but he didn't do shit against it, he changed his stance, he even asked the MEDEF (syndicate of the head of [big] corporations....) to propose change for labor rights...
He was elected by opposing Sarkozy's increase in consumption tax (because they are inequal) but when he got in power he increased consumption taxation...
I could give you some more exemple of what he did and what he said he would do. Don't trust television or news, Hollande is not at all an ennemy of the rich, he didn't raise the marginal taxation rate, he raised the taxation rate on everyone and especially the middle class and the lower class.
|
Three officials from the Democratic consulting firm Dewey Square Group — veteran field organizer Michael Whouley, firm founder Charlie Baker and strategist Jill Alper, whose expertise includes voter attitudes toward women candidates — delivered a dispassionate, numbers-driven assessment. They broke down filing deadlines in certain states, projected how much money Clinton would need to raise and described how field operations have become more sophisticated in the era of Barack Obama.
The meeting was organized by Minyon Moore, a longtime Clinton intimate also at Dewey Square who has informally become the potential candidate’s political eyes and ears of late. Clinton listened closely but said little and made no commitments, according to people familiar with the nearly hourlong gathering. It appears to have been the only formal 2016-related presentation Clinton has been given from anyone outside her immediate circle.
Publicly, Clinton insists she’s many months away from a decision about her political future. But a shadow campaign on her behalf has nevertheless been steadily building for the better part of a year — a quiet, intensifying, improvisational effort to lay the groundwork for another White House bid.
Source
|
A couple good news stories today - Congress didn't make a stink over the new Fed chair and healthcare spending continues to stay in check.
Senate approves Janet Yellen as Fed chair
The Senate on Monday approved Janet Yellen to become the next chair of the Federal Reserve. She currently serves as Fed vice chair and previously worked as head of the San Francisco Fed. ...
Link
Health spending as share of GDP drops for first time since 1997
Spending on health care as a share of GDP in 2012 dropped slightly for the first time since 1997, the federal government announced Monday.
The slight drop in the health-care sector's share of the economy—from 17.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2011 to 17.2 percent in 2012—came as overall growth in health-care spending remained relatively low for the fourth consecutive year, officials said. ...
Just 0.1 percent of the increase in health spending from 2010-2012 was due to effects of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, said Anne Martin, an economist in the Office of the Actuary at CMS. ...
Link
|
In a surprise, several Senate Republicans on Tuesday morning joined with Democrats to break the filibuster of a bill to extend unemployment benefits for three months.
By 60-37, Senate Democrats secured the votes needed to advance the bill to a decision on final passage expected to occur later this week — though the measure will likely stall in the Republican-controlled House unless there’s a deal to pay for the $6.5 billion cost.
Senate Republicans were expected to block the bill, as they were nearly universal in their demands that the Senate find the $6.5 billion needed to pay for the three-month emergency legislation, which Democrats are prioritizing after more than a million Americans were thrust off the benefit rolls on Dec. 28.
Source
|
(Reuters) - A top California lawmaker on Tuesday is expected to unveil a proposal to fund free public preschool for all children in the most populous U.S. state.
The plan by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, to offer a pre-kindergarten program to four-year-olds in the western state comes as he and other Democratic legislators try to push California Governor Jerry Brown to increase spending on social services, including education, in next year's budget.
Steinberg and senate Democrats who support his plan expect to introduce legislation establishing the pre-kindergarten program this week, said the senator's spokesman, Mark Hedlund.
The proposal is expected to involve expanding an existing program aimed at children who turn five years old too late in the year to attend regular kindergarten. Details such as the cost of the plan would be released on Tuesday, Hedlund said.
Brown, who previously governed the state from 1975 to 1983, has toed a centrist line since taking the helm again in 2011. He has repeatedly cautioned progressive legislators not to overspend now that the state has its first real surplus in years.
Source
|
One of two special elections for State Senate is in Virginia today.
http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=SEN&map=CTY
Long story short, Dems have to win this one and the next special election as well to take control of the State Senate.
It will be 20/20 with the Lt. Governor (Who is now going to be a Dem) breaking the ties.
If the Republicans win... it will be blamed on Dick Cheney's weather machine bringing POLAR VORTEX ION down this far south.
|
WASHINGTON -– The oil industry's leading lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute, debuted its 2014 agenda on Tuesday: Keystone, Keystone, and more Keystone.
To be fair, the agenda, which API president and CEO Jack Gerard laid out in a speech at the Newseum Tuesday afternoon, also listed other key issues for the year, including an electoral initiative and a push to end the ban on crude exports. But Keystone XL, the proposed pipeline that would run from Canada's tar sands to oil refineries in Texas, received a good deal of attention. Gerard called on President Barack Obama to approve the project quickly.
"This has gone on far too long," Gerard said. "I'd like to point out that the now five-plus year evaluation process of the Keystone XL pipeline has lasted longer than America's involvement in the second World War, longer than it took our nation to put a man in space, and almost as long as it took to build the Transcontinental Railroad 155 years ago."
The State Department has the authority to approve or deny the permission to build the pipeline because it would cross an international border. A decision is not expected until after a final environmental impact statement is issued.
Gerard called the Keystone delay "a good example of why policy matters and how dogmatic adherence to political ideology can trump economic reality."
Source
|
|
|
A memo from House leadership to the Republican caucus coaches members on how to speak about unemployment in a compassionate manner, according to the Washington Post.
The memo tells representatives that unemployment is a "personal crisis" and asks them to give "proper consideration" to an extension of longterm unemployment benefits.
The Senate voted to advance legislation that extends the emergency unemployment benefits Tuesday, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has insisted that the extension must be paid for in order to pass the lower chamber.
Source
|
WASHINGTON -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) deputy chief of staff was directly involved in a mean-spirited effort to create "traffic problems" for a mayor who declined to endorse the governor's reelection bid, according to newly released emails.
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly wrote in an email on Aug. 13.
"Got it," replied David Wildstein, who was then one of Christie's top aides at the Port Authority, which is run jointly by New York and New Jersey.
A month later Wildstein did indeed create the traffic problems that Christie's office requested. He closed down two of Fort Lee's access lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge, the busiest bridge in the country. The closures came on Sept. 9, the first day of school in Fort Lee, leading to massive traffic jams as bridge traffic backed up into local streets. As a result, police and emergency vehicles were delayed in responding to reports of a missing child and a cardiac arrest.
Source
|
lol.
what was surprising was how brazen they were. hopefully everyone involved loses their political careers. and law licenses if they have them.
|
I hope they get criminally charged with reckless endangerment.
|
From that same article.. a section that I found most interesting:
But the new emails, provided by Wildstein in response to a subpoena from state lawmakers, bring Christie and his inner circle closer to the scandal.
The emails point to clear political motives for the closures, and the officials seem almost giddy at the problems they create.
At one point, Wildstein received a text message from an unknown sender -- the emails are partially redacted -- saying, "Is it wrong that I'm smiling."
"No," replied Wildstein. When the other person added, "I feel badly about the kids. I guess," Wildstein reminded them that their parents are probably Democrats anyway.
"They are the children of Buono voters," said Wildstein, referring to Democrat Barbara Buono, who unsuccessfully challenged Christie in the Nov. 5 gubernatorial election.
Wildstein also predicted political problems for Sokolich over the issue, writing in a Sept. 18 email, "It will be a tough November for this little Serbian."
Sokolich said that for the record, he is Croatian.
"That slight is offensive to me, and it's offensive to me of everyone of Serbian background, I will tell you that," he said. "That to me, if I were Serbian, I would be absolutely, positively appalled by it."
The Port Authority's Foye was furious when he learned about the lane closures and ordered the lanes reopened on Sept. 13. Wildstein and Kelly were, in turn, furious at Foye for screwing with their plan.
"The New York side gave Fort Lee back all three lanes this morning," wrote Wildstein in an email to Kelly on Sept. 13. "We are appropriately going nuts. Samson helping us to retaliate."
"What??" replied Kelly.
"Yes, unreal," said Wildstein. "Fixing now."
|
I really want to like christie.
I really do.
Let me love you christie.
|
A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago:
A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds.
Link to paper.
Link to blog article on it.
The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay.
|
Whenever something crazy happens for the Republicans I always check redstate.com to see what the reaction was. The first response I read was a member applauding this type of behaviour as indicative of being a "strong, no-nonsense" politician that other republicans should *learn* from. If there's one thing you learn from this its that some republicans don't see democratic voters as people anymore, just as tools. This is just so petty and thuggish its hard to express in words. Here's the blog for those interested. I truly wonder what the feedback will be like over time...will all the members of redstate actually support this type of action, or will there be others who resist?
Redstate Member Diary
|
|
|
Colorado marijuana dispensaries made huge sales in the first week of legal recreational marijuana.
Owners of the 37 new dispensaries around the state reported first week retail sales to The Huffington Post that, when added together, were roughly $5 million.
That's a lot of green for Colorado's legal weed.
Colorado, the first state to allow retail recreational marijuana sales to adults age 21 and older, has projected nearly $600 million in combined wholesale and retail marijuana sales annually. The state, which expects to collect nearly $70 million in tax revenue from pot sales this year, won't have its first official glimpse at sales figures until Feb. 20, when businesses are required to file January tax reports, according to Julie Postlethwait of the state Marijuana Enforcement Division.
Denver's 9News was first to report statewide retail sales on New Year's Day, the first day legal pot shops were allowed to operate, exceeded $1 million. Interest dropped in the days that followed, according to shop owners, but many reported customers still waiting in lines out the door.
"Every day that we've been in business since Jan. 1 has been better than my best day of business ever," Andy Williams, owner of Denver's Medicine Man dispensary, told The Huffington Post.
Owners of larger shops told HuffPost they sold from 50 pounds to 60 pounds of marijuana in the first week. Smaller shops sold 20 pounds to 30 pounds, proprietors said.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
