|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
It's also important to consider you don't need to trust or like the CIA/NSA/intelligence community to believe their findings-you really just need to trust/like them on a given issue more than Donald Trump, and even his supporters at this point don't trust half of what he says.
For the simple example, I would hope everyone in the U.S. would trust the CIA World Factbook about a given country's population or whether a given place is a country over Trump in a heartbeat.
Sadly, this useful metric doesn't have much polling out there because it's specific to a given topic (you can kind of extrapolate from polling about whether Russia interfered in 2016, but even that is a poor proxy since Trump has waffled heavily on it recently to the extent it's not quite the agencies vs. Trump).
|
On July 27 2018 03:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote:On July 27 2018 03:18 Mohdoo wrote:This is probably why impeachment of Rosenstein was suggested. This is 100% lights out if the Trump organization was in any way tied to laundering or anything of the like. Weisselberg has been with Trump for 40 years. No one has more knowledge of the financial workings of Trump's dealings than him. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/trump-org-cfo-called-to-grand-jury-to-testify-wsj.htmlIf they are able to get truthful testimony out of him, I think this is GG. A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump's company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday. I think this whole ordeal has done a really good job at showing how proficient our intelligence agencies are. I think a lot of people have been assuming various things are sufficiently hidden. In reality, it was just that no one had bothered to check yet. The question is, does anyone trust the intelligence agencies anymore? GH certainly doesn't, and I'm guessing they've taken a bit of a beating in the public perception (at least on the right) thanks to the FBI getting mauled by Faux News, and did anyone like the CIA and NSA anyway? There are polls out there saying that around 60% of folks are willing to trust the government agencies like the FBI, CIA and so on. Trump’s efforts to badmouth them do not seem to have had much staying power. The recent exception is ICE, which is one of the most disliked and distrusted federal agency.
And they haven't been sharing evidence. Since, ya know, it's still being investigated. I think once things start actually happening, people will be significantly more convinced once they actually share info. 60% is wonderful considering how polarized we are and the fact that no one has been trying to convince the public directly.
|
On July 27 2018 04:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 03:42 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote:On July 27 2018 03:18 Mohdoo wrote:This is probably why impeachment of Rosenstein was suggested. This is 100% lights out if the Trump organization was in any way tied to laundering or anything of the like. Weisselberg has been with Trump for 40 years. No one has more knowledge of the financial workings of Trump's dealings than him. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/trump-org-cfo-called-to-grand-jury-to-testify-wsj.htmlIf they are able to get truthful testimony out of him, I think this is GG. A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump's company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday. I think this whole ordeal has done a really good job at showing how proficient our intelligence agencies are. I think a lot of people have been assuming various things are sufficiently hidden. In reality, it was just that no one had bothered to check yet. The question is, does anyone trust the intelligence agencies anymore? GH certainly doesn't, and I'm guessing they've taken a bit of a beating in the public perception (at least on the right) thanks to the FBI getting mauled by Faux News, and did anyone like the CIA and NSA anyway? There are polls out there saying that around 60% of folks are willing to trust the government agencies like the FBI, CIA and so on. Trump’s efforts to badmouth them do not seem to have had much staying power. The recent exception is ICE, which is one of the most disliked and distrusted federal agency. And they haven't been sharing evidence. Since, ya know, it's still being investigated. I think once things start actually happening, people will be significantly more convinced once they actually share info. 60% is wonderful considering how polarized we are and the fact that no one has been trying to convince the public directly.
Badmouthing criminal intelligence agencies predates Trump's political foray. I find 60% pretty scary. It should be much lower than that. It appears tying everything bad to Trump and making Trump worse than anything ever has done a lot for their credibility among Democrats anyway.
|
Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general:
Source:
But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals.
There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies.
|
On July 27 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general: Source:Show nested quote +But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals. There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies.
What's funny is it has to be mostly a different group of people than this group in 2006
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy."
www.washingtonpost.com
The overlap (people having faith in them in both cases) would be " reasonable centrists".
It acts as an interesting case study in what I think is wrong with US politics and 2-party partisanship (combined with fptp).
It betrays the very politicized nature of trust in our intelligence agencies.
|
Multi-State Lawsuit Against Census Citizenship Question To Move Ahead
A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled that the largest of the six lawsuits against the new citizenship question on the 2020 census can move forward in court.
More than two dozen states and cities, plus other groups and individuals, are suing the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department, which oversees the census, to get the question about U.S. citizenship status removed from forms for the 2020 census. Judges in Maryland and California are deciding whether to dismiss similar legal challenges.
While U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman has dismissed the plaintiffs' claim based on the Enumeration Clause — the constitutional requirement of a national head count every 10 years — Furman has ruled that other claims in the two cases before him can proceed.
In his opinion released on Thursday, Furman said that the plaintiffs "plausibly allege that [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross'] decision to reinstate the citizenship question was motivated at least in part by discriminatory animus and will result in a discriminatory effect."
There are signs, Furman wrote, that the Trump administration officials "deviated from their standard procedures in hastily adding" a question about citizenship status, which the Census Bureau has not asked all U.S. households about in close to 70 years.
Citing an email from President Trump's reelection campaign that said Trump "officially mandated" the question, Furman said it is plausible that Trump was "personally involved in the decision." He added that the plaintiffs' claim that Trump administration officials were intentionally discriminating against immigrant communities of color was also plausible, pointing to the president's comments in January about people from African nations as "people from shithole countries."
Still, the judge noted that Secretary Ross, who approved adding the citizenship question, has "broad authority" over the census. "Plaintiffs may not ultimately be able to prove that he exercised that authority in an unlawful manner," Furman wrote. The two cases in New York City now move forward towards a potential trial that would start as early as late October.
Source
A multi state suit against adding a citizenship question to the census is proceeding. The legal argument in the case in interesting, because it doesn’t’ argue that the government can’t add the question. Instead it argues that the Trump administration deviated from the standard process of adding the question, which means the reasons for adding the question were not clearly laid out in the public record. And its always interesting when Trump’s prior comments come up in legal proceedings.
|
On July 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general: Source:But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals. There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies. What's funny is it has to be mostly a different group of people than this group in 2006 Show nested quote +A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." www.washingtonpost.comThe overlap (people having faith in them in both cases) would be " reasonable centrists". It acts as an interesting case study in what I think is wrong with US politics and 2-party partisanship (combined with fptp). It betrays the very politicized nature of trust in our intelligence agencies.
I don't understand quite why it's so bad in the US, on this particular point.
England is almost as two party (with occasional shared governance as is currently the case), but there's little politicisation of the intelligence services, and trust in them is generally quite high.
|
On July 27 2018 06:13 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general: Source:But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals. There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies. What's funny is it has to be mostly a different group of people than this group in 2006 A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." www.washingtonpost.comThe overlap (people having faith in them in both cases) would be " reasonable centrists". It acts as an interesting case study in what I think is wrong with US politics and 2-party partisanship (combined with fptp). It betrays the very politicized nature of trust in our intelligence agencies. I don't understand quite why it's so bad in the US, on this particular point. England is almost as two party (with occasional shared governance as is currently the case), but there's little politicisation of the intelligence services, and trust in them is generally quite high.
I don't know enough about British intelligence to know whether that trust is misplaced or not. I'm reasonably familiar with them being close allies with US intelligence (though reluctantly at times) and we do heinous stuff on the regular. It's been a while since Iran but I imagine that's not something anyone was held accountable for in the UK either.
|
On July 27 2018 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 06:13 iamthedave wrote:On July 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general: Source:But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals. There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies. What's funny is it has to be mostly a different group of people than this group in 2006 A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." www.washingtonpost.comThe overlap (people having faith in them in both cases) would be " reasonable centrists". It acts as an interesting case study in what I think is wrong with US politics and 2-party partisanship (combined with fptp). It betrays the very politicized nature of trust in our intelligence agencies. I don't understand quite why it's so bad in the US, on this particular point. England is almost as two party (with occasional shared governance as is currently the case), but there's little politicisation of the intelligence services, and trust in them is generally quite high. I don't know enough about British intelligence to know whether that trust is misplaced or not. I'm reasonably familiar with them being close allies with US intelligence (though reluctantly at times) and we do heinous stuff on the regular. It's been a while since Iran but I imagine that's not something anyone was held accountable for in the UK either.
As far as I know our spy services are well regarded internationally, but I think that's more for efficiency than moral character.
Honestly, we the pubilc know pretty much fuck all about what our intelligence services get up to. They rarely appear in the news, none of the upper echelons are public figures, it's all direct-deal government stuff. I couldn't tell you who leads MI:5 without a google search. I don't think he's been mentioned in the news this year.
|
On July 27 2018 06:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2018 06:13 iamthedave wrote:On July 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Here is the recent NPR story in regards to polling about the FBI and confidence in general: Source:But a whopping 72 percent of Americans said they have faith in the CIA's and FBI's conclusions about the assessment of the Russian election interference, compared with just 15 percent who believe Putin's denials. Trump has said Putin strongly denies any involvement. Eighty-six percent of Democrats say they believe the intelligence community over Putin, and 63 percent of GOP voters say the same thing. However, 21 percent of Republicans do say they believe Putin's dismissals. There was some other, more generalized polling in regards to government agencies, but I don’t believe NPR was the one that reported those. They had the general trustworthiness and other stats. But the key take away, in my opinion, is the majority of citizens don’t have a big issue with the current information coming out of the government on the Russia investigation in general. The FBI isn’t making a lot of public assertions about other topics, so its hard to poll on those. And the majority of Americans think Trump is a liar and a good chunk are not sold on his immigration policies. What's funny is it has to be mostly a different group of people than this group in 2006 A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." www.washingtonpost.comThe overlap (people having faith in them in both cases) would be " reasonable centrists". It acts as an interesting case study in what I think is wrong with US politics and 2-party partisanship (combined with fptp). It betrays the very politicized nature of trust in our intelligence agencies. I don't understand quite why it's so bad in the US, on this particular point. England is almost as two party (with occasional shared governance as is currently the case), but there's little politicisation of the intelligence services, and trust in them is generally quite high. I don't know enough about British intelligence to know whether that trust is misplaced or not. I'm reasonably familiar with them being close allies with US intelligence (though reluctantly at times) and we do heinous stuff on the regular. It's been a while since Iran but I imagine that's not something anyone was held accountable for in the UK either. As far as I know our spy services are well regarded internationally, but I think that's more for efficiency than moral character. Honestly, we the pubilc know pretty much fuck all about what our intelligence services get up to. They rarely appear in the news, none of the upper echelons are public figures, it's all direct-deal government stuff. I couldn't tell you who leads MI:5 without a google search. I don't think he's been mentioned in the news this year.
You generalise a lot.
I personally haven't forgotten Prism, or DRIPA/IPA (also literally known as snoopers charter). I can't speak for MI:5, but the GCHQ is fucking scary, and by no means better or more trustworthy than CIA, FBI etc.
|
On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company.
Speaking of, now they're only letting me see 2 posts on my news feed because I don't meet the friends list quotas to see more.
Way to drive people even further from your platform, Facebook.
|
On July 27 2018 08:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company. Speaking of, now they're only letting me see 2 posts on my news feed because I don't meet the friends list quotas to see more. Way to drive people even further from your platform, Facebook.
Yes yes... all of you be mad and drive the price down so I can buy it and wait for it to top 200 again
|
On July 27 2018 08:19 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company. Speaking of, now they're only letting me see 2 posts on my news feed because I don't meet the friends list quotas to see more. Way to drive people even further from your platform, Facebook. Yes yes... all of you be mad and drive the price down so I can buy it and wait for it to top 200 again
Given the news floating around Facebook, I kinda think they might have peaked or been way over valued.
|
On July 27 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 08:19 IyMoon wrote:On July 27 2018 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company. Speaking of, now they're only letting me see 2 posts on my news feed because I don't meet the friends list quotas to see more. Way to drive people even further from your platform, Facebook. Yes yes... all of you be mad and drive the price down so I can buy it and wait for it to top 200 again Given the news floating around Facebook, I kinda think they might have peaked or been way over valued.
I am giving it a couple days to see if it stays around here. I don't see any reason why it wont be up to 200 again in a year or so even if it peaks here.
There is no other social media outlit coming to take over, and social media isn't going anywhere
|
On July 27 2018 09:18 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2018 08:19 IyMoon wrote:On July 27 2018 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company. Speaking of, now they're only letting me see 2 posts on my news feed because I don't meet the friends list quotas to see more. Way to drive people even further from your platform, Facebook. Yes yes... all of you be mad and drive the price down so I can buy it and wait for it to top 200 again Given the news floating around Facebook, I kinda think they might have peaked or been way over valued. I am giving it a couple days to see if it stays around here. I don't see any reason why it wont be up to 200 again in a year or so even if it peaks here. There is no other social media outlit coming to take over, and social media isn't going anywhere
The drop today was because of fears that Facebooks growth had stopped or flatlined. We will see, but I don’t see the data gathering industry getting any easier. Especially after the 23andme news that they sold all their data to two pharmaceutical companies.
But who knows, maybe the tech boom never ends?
|
I need to tie a few loose ends here and missed this post earlier.
On July 27 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:
Trying to simplify unbelievably complex economic mechanisms into shitty little algebraic equations is not only unproductive, it is deceptive and non-real. That isn't how anything actually works. We don't benefit from trying to simplify these kinds of discussions into mathematical approximations. It isn't real. We end up discussing something that straight up isn't even remotely representative of the real world.
I can see the allure of trying to feel like you understand something more than you do, but maybe, just maybe, there is a reason the people actually working on these problems have a 20 ft long résumé. There are many qualities that make economic mechanisms feel approachable and easily understood. That's why people often compare person debt to the debt of the united states. It feels like it kind of works. It doesn't.
First of all, it isn't just some shitty equation. The sectoral balances absolutely are reflective of how the monetary system works because it reflects the National and Financial Accounts.
https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis: “BEA’s national economic statistics provide a comprehensive view of U.S. production, consumption, investment, exports and imports, and income and saving. These statistics are best known by summary measures such as gross domestic product (GDP), corporate profits, personal income and spending, and personal saving.”
The National Accounts measure non-financial transactions while the Financial Accounts measure financial transactions.
The National Accounts separate the US economy into various expenditure categories:
a. Government spending
b. Consumption
c. Investment
d. Exports and Imports
The National Accounts provide us with a view of the sources and uses of Gross Domestic Product, which is the national income.
a. Sources: Government spending, consumption, investment, and exports minus imports.
b. Uses: Consumption, savings and taxation.
If you are looking for credentials, feel free to have a look at the authors of the MMT textbook for reference under the tab About: http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/mmt/
On July 27 2018 03:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
Therefore, most taxes do not reduce but redistribute the ability to spend for the public. Do you agree with that?
Not necessarily... it CAN happen this way, but spending and taxing are completely separate unrelated operations at the federal level.
|
Q2 GDP advanced estimate tomorrow @ 8:30 AM. Expectation is very positive (4%+).
Trump likes to front-run numbers, so it'll likely hit.
Big question is sustainability. Tariffs likely to have a negative affect moving forward and foreign buyers (China) have likely been stocking inventory in advance of tariffs.
Benefits of tax cuts are largely baked in.
Nowcast is trending down.
10Yr vs 2Yr is getting spooky.
The future is... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User was warned for this post: no twitch memes please
Edit: oh tuck off, cunt.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 27 2018 10:14 screamingpalm wrote:I need to tie a few loose ends here and missed this post earlier. Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:
Trying to simplify unbelievably complex economic mechanisms into shitty little algebraic equations is not only unproductive, it is deceptive and non-real. That isn't how anything actually works. We don't benefit from trying to simplify these kinds of discussions into mathematical approximations. It isn't real. We end up discussing something that straight up isn't even remotely representative of the real world.
I can see the allure of trying to feel like you understand something more than you do, but maybe, just maybe, there is a reason the people actually working on these problems have a 20 ft long résumé. There are many qualities that make economic mechanisms feel approachable and easily understood. That's why people often compare person debt to the debt of the united states. It feels like it kind of works. It doesn't. First of all, it isn't just some shitty equation. The sectoral balances absolutely are reflective of how the monetary system works because it reflects the National and Financial Accounts. https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htmFrom the Bureau of Economic Analysis: “BEA’s national economic statistics provide a comprehensive view of U.S. production, consumption, investment, exports and imports, and income and saving. These statistics are best known by summary measures such as gross domestic product (GDP), corporate profits, personal income and spending, and personal saving.” The National Accounts measure non-financial transactions while the Financial Accounts measure financial transactions. The National Accounts separate the US economy into various expenditure categories: a. Government spending b. Consumption c. Investment d. Exports and Imports The National Accounts provide us with a view of the sources and uses of Gross Domestic Product, which is the national income. a. Sources: Government spending, consumption, investment, and exports minus imports. b. Uses: Consumption, savings and taxation. If you are looking for credentials, feel free to have a look at the authors of the MMT textbook for reference under the tab About: http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/mmt/Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 03:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
Therefore, most taxes do not reduce but redistribute the ability to spend for the public. Do you agree with that?
Not necessarily... it CAN happen this way, but spending and taxing are completely separate unrelated operations at the federal level.
I barely understand any of this stuff but I'm loving it. Any time understandings/assumptions of how things actually function is challenged everyone has the opportunity to gain a better understanding.
|
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/cohen-claims-trump-knew-of-meeting-with-russia-before-it-happened.html
As anyone following along has long suspected, Trump knew about the Jr. meeting with the Russians. The timeline is absolutely insane and apparently Cohen is willing to work with Mueller to give his version of events.
Also it appears the leak was from Trumps team.
Lanny's statement: “I cannot comment. And I have to wonder why the Trump people would put that out. It was not from us.”
It wouldn't be the first time they 'leaked' stuff to get ahead of it.
|
On July 27 2018 11:47 crms wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/cohen-claims-trump-knew-of-meeting-with-russia-before-it-happened.htmlAs anyone following along has long suspected, Trump knew about the Jr. meeting with the Russians. The timeline is absolutely insane and apparently Cohen is willing to work with Mueller to give his version of events. Also it appears the leak was from Trumps team. Lanny's statement: “I cannot comment. And I have to wonder why the Trump people would put that out. It was not from us.” It wouldn't be the first time they 'leaked' stuff to get ahead of it.
They both say they didn't do it. First takes are "this is it" and "this hurts Cohen"
The long and short of it is that Trump's not worried and he just fucked Cohen's deal. Well at least it's optics, I'm sure he'll still get off mostly. Maybe a year in club fed if this was his best card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
