|
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 27 2017 06:01 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:55 Zambrah wrote:
Honestly the picture that you put on a piece of money matters so little that I think you can loosen that standard. So what if Harriet Tubman is chosen because shes black and a woman and she accomplished a lot, ONE of those things is pretty relevant and again, its a picture on money, who gives a shit? Who and what a country chooses to acknowledge as its most important historical figures is a pretty important matter. We had mainhly Artists/Famous Scientists on them. On the next series (rolling out atm step by step) there are no persons at all. Its not important at all.
we have bridges on them... I think~
|
On January 27 2017 05:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. I think the one's that want a "feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy" are the ones trying to convince folks that not illegally slaughtering and forcibly removing it's rightful inhabitants would have been a bad thing. It's easy to say it's wrong, because it was wrong. Though I guess not as easy for some. If people want to say he's a war hero for what he did during the war of 1812 that's on them, but to me it looks more like an invasion, followed by a resistance partially sponsored by another country. Lots of history books will say he "fought the British" but he was mostly fighting indigenous people, you know, the people who were defending themselves against foreign invaders set on destroying their way of life? But let's say one prefers the rose colored version you mentioned, in that case, they should be advocating for giving back the huge swaths of land in the west they were promised and was subsequently stolen from them. What he did was little more than imperialism. A fight that needed to be fought for the benefit of all mankind. Do you agree that if he had not removed the Indians, that the US as a whole would have suffered? It seems almost ubiquitous at this point. Call it bad if you wish. From what I read I'd have justified it about the same way he ultimately did so there is no point in repeating it. And no, they're not getting their land back. Obviously, but I guess this is one of those "might makes right" scenarios. On January 27 2017 05:13 Leporello wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. You're the one bringing up Hitler all of a sudden. So since you brought him up, do you think Germany taking Hitler off of government paraphernalia is "revisionism"? One could argue Hitler had many merits in spite of his glaring flaws, and he transformed the country in profound ways. I dunno, maybe? I don't know German history well enough to gauge whether or not his positive contributions to Germany are worthy of acknowledgement, but I would be willing to listen if someone wanted to make the case. I don't know what you're basing the "if he wouldn't have done it, the US would have suffered greatly" on, let alone that it made the world better? Also Jacksonian Democracy has less of a shine for those who it didn't/wouldn't have included (like myself and the millions of other Americans who's constitutional rights still aren't adequately protected). Well the country would likely be a lot smaller or at least deprived of many key resources. Fair enough on the criticisms of Jacksonian Democracy - but it certainly was an important step worthy of being well-acknowledged in history. Even if you think it wasn't far enough, you could admit it was one large step forward from its predecessors.
Smaller or deprived of resources they had no right to doesn't quite sound like what you were implying.
A step sure, a large step forward, I'm not so sure about. It was mostly about some white men worrying about other white men not letting them get rich abusing the people of color in their region and supporting stealing more land. Stealing land was popular among the masses who saw it as a way to change their station in life.
It was Jacksonian Democrats that fought to keep the question of slavery out of national politics. Jacksonian Democrats would have been perfectly content if a fully realized version of their vision left everyone other than white males out.
|
I wanna see Jackson Pollock on money and its just one of his paintings with a big number in the middle.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa.
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/
the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s.
ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens.
however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'.
we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world.
but hey, at least we won't have trade.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I'd rather our money just not have anyone printed on it. Signifying someone's importance by putting them on a piece of currency seems...strange. I could not tell you a single person on any dollar bill. Except Benjamin. I know there is some currency with someone named Benjamin because of rap songs saying something about that.
I'm not sure if you're serious here, because if it's satirical, I'm not getting the implied point you're making.
|
On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall.
Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money".
|
If anyone represents the sins of the country and the shitty things we did to get to where we are its Andrew Jackson. He exposed the lie of checks and balances by defying the supreme court and doing what he wanted. With the will of the majority of the people behind him he could do whatever he wanted. It was the death of the dream of the founding fathers and grounded the new republic in the same real politic thinking that began the relationship between the US and the UK.
On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money".
But then you're treating someone differently beacuse of their skin color and gender which is what I though we were trying to get past in a modern society.
|
On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade.
Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game.
|
It's fairly obvious what the anecdote implies. It means that no one other than you think "that absurd idea to remove Andrew kackson" from the $20.
|
From Scott Adams:
I’m having a fun time watching President Trump flood the news cycle with so many stories and outrages that no one can keep up. Here’s how the math of persuasion works in this situation:
1 outrage out of 3 headlines in a week: Bad Persuasion
25 outrages out of 25 headlines in a week: Excellent Persuasion
At the moment there are so many outrages, executive orders, protests, and controversies that none of them can get enough oxygen in our brains. I can’t obsess about problem X because the rest of the alphabet is coming at me at the same time.
When you encounter a situation that is working great except for one identifiable problem, you can focus on the problem and try to fix it. But if you have a dozen complaints at the same time, none of them looks special. The whole situation just looks confusing, and you don’t know where to start. So you wait and see what happens. Humans need contrast in order to make solid decisions that turn into action. Trump removed all of your contrast by providing multiple outrages of similar energy.
You’re probably seeing the best persuasion you will ever see from a new president. Instead of dribbling out one headline at a time, so the vultures and critics can focus their fire, Trump has flooded the playing field. You don’t know where to aim your outrage. He’s creating so many opportunities for disagreement that it’s mentally exhausting. Literally. He’s wearing down the critics, replacing their specific complaints with entire encyclopedias of complaints. And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public?
He sure got a lot done.
Even if you don’t like it.
In only a few days, Trump has made us question what-the-hell every other president was doing during their first weeks in office. Were they even trying?
Source.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade. Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game.
china itself is a lost cause, but for example, with the TPP we'll have anti-monopoly and anti-corruption standards in member countries. that is leveraging u.s. power for norm building.
and as i said, winning that construction contract is shortsighted. the u.s. would reap much more long term reward if trade partners follow a broad based growth path, with a middle class that can support future u.s. exports.
|
On January 27 2017 06:18 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade. Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game. china itself is a lost cause, but for example, with the TPP we'll have anti-monopoly and anti-corruption standards in member countries. that is leveraging u.s. power for norm building. and as i said, winning that construction contract is shortsighted. the u.s. would reap much more long term reward if trade partners follow a broad based growth path, with a middle class that can support future u.s. exports.
I'm genuinely curious what the US would export to other countries middle classes?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money".
I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree. Would you say the same thing in a context like "women and black people have contributed far too much to this country not to have one of their kind be president" as well?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:18 oneofthem wrote:On January 27 2017 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade. Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game. china itself is a lost cause, but for example, with the TPP we'll have anti-monopoly and anti-corruption standards in member countries. that is leveraging u.s. power for norm building. and as i said, winning that construction contract is shortsighted. the u.s. would reap much more long term reward if trade partners follow a broad based growth path, with a middle class that can support future u.s. exports. I'm genuinely curious what the US would export to other countries middle classes?
traditionally agriculture products, aerospace, industrial equipments. ip content stuff and professional/financial services have become big recently.
a lot of small businesses actually are export-import related. regulatory harmonization in particular would create space for u.s. small businesses to access foreign platforms of distribution. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Benefits-for-US-Small-Business-Fact-Sheet.pdf
|
On January 27 2017 06:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money". I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree. Would you say the same thing in a context like "women and black people have contributed far too much to this country not to have one of their kind be president" as well?
I think it's different since it's not a simply a symbolic nod to one's historic contributions.
That said, to a degree I would. Statistically speaking it's remarkable that we haven't had a woman president, that doesn't mean someone should be president because they are a woman, but we *should* have had a women president by now if we practiced what we preached.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money". I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree. Would you say the same thing in a context like "women and black people have contributed far too much to this country not to have one of their kind be president" as well? I think it's different since it's not a simply a symbolic nod to one's historic contributions. That said, to a degree I would. Statistically speaking it's remarkable that we haven't had a woman president, that doesn't mean someone should be president because they are a woman, but we *should* have had a women president by now if we practiced what we preached.
That's reasonably fair I suppose - though again, I'm not sure how much I agree. But I can respect the sentiment.
|
On January 27 2017 06:27 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 06:18 oneofthem wrote:On January 27 2017 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade. Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game. china itself is a lost cause, but for example, with the TPP we'll have anti-monopoly and anti-corruption standards in member countries. that is leveraging u.s. power for norm building. and as i said, winning that construction contract is shortsighted. the u.s. would reap much more long term reward if trade partners follow a broad based growth path, with a middle class that can support future u.s. exports. I'm genuinely curious what the US would export to other countries middle classes? traditionally agriculture products, aerospace, industrial equipments. ip content stuff and professional/financial services has become big recently.
Very little/none of that sounds aimed at the middle class, maybe food and entertainment (if that's what you meant by ag & ip)?
But I don't know why developed nations would by that stuff from us over the rest of the world market (except for entertainment).
I for one will pass on being the world's minstrels. I'd prefer a real strategy that included things like heavily investing in tech like we are seeing from Akhan Technologies.
|
On January 27 2017 06:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money". I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree. Would you say the same thing in a context like "women and black people have contributed far too much to this country not to have one of their kind be president" as well?
I think that the historical context of Harriet Tubman, and other oppressed minority leaders who were activists during slavery or civil rights movements, does allow her sex and race to be two points in her favor. Overcoming adversity, speaking out against systemic violence that directly hurts her, and risking her life are all elements of bravery.
Let's be honest though, the only black woman that Trump would ever put on a dollar bill would be a blackfaced version of Ivanka.
|
On January 27 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context. But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall. Those are two accurate and relevant statements that absolutely should be applied. A person shouldn't be there simply because they fulfill those two criteria, but it's perfectly legitimate to say "Women and Black people have contributed far too much to this country to not be memorialized on it's paper money". I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree. Would you say the same thing in a context like "women and black people have contributed far too much to this country not to have one of their kind be president" as well? I think it's different since it's not a simply a symbolic nod to one's historic contributions. That said, to a degree I would. Statistically speaking it's remarkable that we haven't had a woman president, that doesn't mean someone should be president because they are a woman, but we *should* have had a women president by now if we practiced what we preached.
We still don't have equal rights for women, so frankly I'm not surprised. It's unfortunate, but a huge portion of our population is sexist. Including our president.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 27 2017 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 06:27 oneofthem wrote:On January 27 2017 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 06:18 oneofthem wrote:On January 27 2017 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 06:10 oneofthem wrote:this guy sounds like a huge asshole but he's right about trump and the fcpa. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/is-trump-the-end-of-fcpa-enforcement/the idea of reforming international capitalism away from kleptocratic norms is dead. in the long run, what development path the third world follows is decisive in the evolution of the u.s. ideally, trade results in rapid catchup development in the lagging country. with the proper legal and governmental institutions, we would see the rise of consumer base in formerly destitute places, and this will eventually become export markets for the u.s., if trade liberalization also happens. however, if kleptocratic norms become widespread, there would be no development in the supply chain country. instead, you'll see huge portion of the wealth accumulated to local elites with control of government and resources. these elites would then put that capital into western real estate, t-bills and whatnot 'stores of value'. we were on the latter path, with somewhat of a chance to work towards the former had sec. clinton been elected. but with anyone who gives a shit already gone, the future is looking pretty dystopic for the world. but hey, at least we won't have trade. Thank China's rising influence in international trade for this one. Western companies can't compete in the banana republics like China can due to ideological constraints. Get rid of those, and it's a new ball game. china itself is a lost cause, but for example, with the TPP we'll have anti-monopoly and anti-corruption standards in member countries. that is leveraging u.s. power for norm building. and as i said, winning that construction contract is shortsighted. the u.s. would reap much more long term reward if trade partners follow a broad based growth path, with a middle class that can support future u.s. exports. I'm genuinely curious what the US would export to other countries middle classes? traditionally agriculture products, aerospace, industrial equipments. ip content stuff and professional/financial services has become big recently. Very little/none of that sounds aimed at the middle class, maybe food and entertainment (if that's what you meant by ag & ip)? But I don't know why developed nations would by that stuff from us over the rest of the world market (except for entertainment). I for one will pass on being the world's minstrels. I'd prefer a real strategy that included things like heavily investing in tech like we are seeing from Akhan Technologies.
keep in mind one benefit of a rise of income in the formerly poor countries is that there would be less of a labor arbitrage advantage to outsource.
with that said, the economy is just transforming due to technological shifts, and this is a reality that will cause a lot of painful frictions. the middle class of the future will be much more services oriented. the norms building with respect to respect for IP is precisely undertaken with this in mind, as without IP protection a lot of u.s. style economy products would not get any revenue from places that do not have these laws.
that there is concentration in the u.s., particular with respect to exporting companies, is a separate problem. you are correct if you think current trade benefits a fairly small segment of high value workers concentrated in a few cities. however, this present reality can change with future development and reform. frankly, it's moreso the geographic concentration of the economy in the u.s. that's the problem. if we could get people out of san francisco and new york and spread them out, more local economy can be supported.
as far as competing for foreign markets, it's not gonna happen automatically. but there are some advantages to the u.s. such as easier access to startup capital and high level of research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
42150
870
126
108
EPT
