|
Radish posted:Eh whatever. If it works out for the best, great. I just don't have a lot of faith in this SCOTUS doing the right thing but I guess even they can do something decent once in a while. File this one under "failure to gently caress up".
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 20:37 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:06 |
|
So The Economist put out a "why aren't wages rising" article about how technology isn't solving all our problems. Meanwhile, they missed the point entirely: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better quote:IF THERE IS a technological revolution in progress, rich economies could be forgiven for wishing it would go away. Workers in America, Europe and Japan have been through a difficult few decades. In the 1970s the blistering growth after the second world war vanished in both Europe and America. In the early 1990s Japan joined the slump, entering a prolonged period of economic stagnation. Brief spells of faster growth in intervening years quickly petered out. The rich world is still trying to shake off the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. And now the digital economy, far from pushing up wages across the board in response to higher productivity, is keeping them flat for the mass of workers while extravagantly rewarding the most talented ones. It can't possibly be a failure of politics and quote:A new paper by Peter Cappelli, of the University of Pennsylvania, concludes that in recent years over-education has been a consistent problem in most developed economies, which do not produce enough suitable jobs to absorb the growing number of college-educated workers. Over the next few decades demand in the top layer of the labour market may well centre on individuals with high abstract reasoning, creative, and interpersonal skills that are beyond most workers, including graduates. Also, the appeal to governments, lol! anonumos fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 7, 2014 |
# ? Oct 7, 2014 20:52 |
|
Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:08 |
|
Wages have stagnated because people are just too qualified.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:38 |
|
There was a similar article a month or two ago in the Economist about restarting America's stalled economy. Surprise! It suggested a tax holiday for repatriated foreign cash and more H1-B visas. Oh, and fast-tracking whatever terrible new trade deal is percolating through the system. That ought to fix everything.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 21:53 |
|
kik2dagroin posted:I am kind of disappointed MM didn't capture the whole rant, but this latest one from Master Shake had me giggling http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/10/07/levin-supreme-court-action-on-marriage-equality/201045 Guys, why do we even have a federal government? Or judges. Reagan be praised.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:02 |
|
Ah yes, all the money is accumulating to those who are most "talented".* *Talent not equally distributed across race or sex, talent more common among those born into wealth, talent may consist entirely of threatening America into bailing out your bad gambles on financial instruments or the economy gets it.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:15 |
|
Maybe we could trade merit based pay for teachers for merit based pay for management. Just put them through a Office Space-esque interview for their own job every year or so about what they did to justify a 1%er salary and anyone who sweats gets taxed the gently caress up.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:20 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic? Not intentionally.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2014 22:23 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Oh Dinesh As usual, the answer is this: It's you, Dinesh. You're the worst.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:01 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Oh Dinesh What the gently caress this is supposed to mean?
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:05 |
|
beatlegs posted:What the gently caress this is supposed to mean? It's a clever pun. By replacing the E with an O, he makes it sound like Obama. Ho ho, what a jest! Give the guy a break, it's not easy when your career is staring into the abyss of voluntary martyrdom.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:08 |
|
My interpretation is that this means that Ebola is going to be God's judgement on Muslims and Since Ebola is going to be a problem and in the news for at least the next six months I expect this to start people doing some really really really irrational poo poo. Not necessarily violent, just incomprehensibly weird and irrational. They way they are all talking to each other reminds me of what I saw when actual schizophrenics were having paranoid meltdowns. poo poo is gonna get strange. Edit: Take this all with a grain of salt.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:16 |
|
There's also his career of making movies that people go to see out of peer pressure and spite rather than the films actual merits.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:17 |
|
Levin just put on a fairly interesting show about crazy supreme court justices throughout history which was actually fairly entertaining. He 'wrapped up' his giant, circuitous route through American history with his point. And his point is, and I quote "The court [by refusing to rule] is causing hostility and balkanization in this country", by voting in a way that makes bigots feel angry about being 'oppressed'. Literally he couldn't come up with anything other than 'the courts must keep the status quo and therefor the peace.' You're making bigots mad they can't be bigots legally anymore, America. And we're MAD!
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 00:32 |
|
Big Beef City posted:Levin just put on a fairly interesting show about crazy supreme court justices throughout history which was actually fairly entertaining. Levin is insane when it comes to his opinions on the judiciary and squarely in the Bircher/Larouchite/Paulite tradition of magical thinking. Where does he think the Supreme Court went off the rails? Well, only a short time ago in 1794 with the explicit foundation of judicial review. The hilarity of being opposed to judicial review is amplified even more by the references in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton to judicial review. So this is a man with a huge boner for the founding fathers that quotes the Federalist Papers all the time and says he thinks "he was born in the wrong time, and would have loved to have been a representative debating the constitution in the 18th century," but but somehow... for some reason.. this one key fact seems to elude him. He's an "originalist," but he believes DOMA is A-Okay. By his logic, I wonder where in the constitution it says that the federal government should be concerned with marriage at all. I can't find that anywhere! He's David Barton-esque in his ability to pretend his own violently illogical opinions about the judiciary form some form of coherent philosophy, and the right wing media takes him seriously. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:20 |
|
I tried to look up his opinions on 'court opinions he likes', possibly during the late clinton/bush terms, but he just really seems to hate the judicial branch of the government for some reason. He seems hell bent on denying the power of the executive and judicial branches, and using state legislatures to elect a national legislature. A viewpoint I'm sure he see's as 'coalesced democracy' or some such term.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:36 |
|
Big Beef City posted:I tried to look up his opinions on 'court opinions he likes', possibly during the late clinton/bush terms, but he just really seems to hate the judicial branch of the government for some reason. He wrote an entire book outlining his philosophy on the Supreme Court(which I'm sure he mentioned over and over and over again during that show). Here's a review that outlines all the absurdity: http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2874 He opposes the direct election of senators, and basically just really dislikes democracy in general. He describes his viewpoint as "little-R republicanism." So he appears to believe that the voice of the people should not have the representation it does at the federal level, and that it should be a more direct extension of the popularly elected state governments. This, by the way, is a far more coherent explanation of his philosophy than he has ever provided. You're right about him hating the executive and judicial branches. He basically perceives any leeway given to the executive branch in terms of implementation to be an unconstitutional delegation of power by congress. In his philosophy, though, it's unclear what recourse there would even be to these unconstitutional delegations of power since he doesn't believe SCOTUS has the power to declare things unconstitutional. One of his other proposed fixes to the current system is allowing like 2/3rds or 3/5ths of state legislatures to overturn SCOTUS decisions, and "term-limiting" supreme court justices. ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:48 |
|
That makes sense, actually. During tonight's program he actually flat out said the American voter can't be trusted to know what national politicians are up to, hence why it's better to let state representatives elect them to power. edit: It's almost like he thinks local politicians who elect state politicians who elect national politicians is the ideal, while raging against the "Chicago Politics" of one Barack Obama. It's so loving weird how that works, isn't it? Big Beef City fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:55 |
|
Given their views on democracy, it seems like most conservatives would prefer a soviet-style council system.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 01:58 |
|
Big Beef City posted:That makes sense, actually. Yeah, it's taken me a long loving time listening to Mark Levin to be able to parse any coherent understanding out of his inane ramblings. What am I doing with my life? Shbobdb posted:Given their views on democracy, it seems like most conservatives would prefer a soviet-style council system. The irony that runs through all of this is that his view that "SCOTUS promotes tyranny!" is also a common left wing criticism of past supreme court decisions. He just uses a different handful of cases, and commonly a completely inverted definition of what tyranny is. For example, he thinks Supreme Court decisions upholding the jailing of dissenters during war time are completely fine. This happens a lot with conservatives. A great example is the recent conservative mantra of, "If you don't work you shouldn't eat," which was one of the founding tenets of Leninism. The difference, again, is the definition of who is lazy is inverted. Modern conservatives use it to excoriate the working class for not working hard enough while socialists directed it at the bourgeoisie getting rich off the backs of the working class.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:04 |
|
Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution: 1. Impose Congressional term limits 2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment 3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review 4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation 5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election) 6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review 7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause 8. Limit eminent domain powers 9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution 10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws 11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:07 |
|
Big Beef City posted:That makes sense, actually. During tonight's program he actually flat out said the American voter can't be trusted to know what national politicians are up to, hence why it's better to let state representatives elect them to power. Anyone who's worked with or talked to an elected official knows that 95% of the time this would be worse as most elected people can't be bothered to find out if the crazy person who asks them to fire all government staff is correct that the government staff stole 500 girls in
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:10 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution: He should really just save time and say he wants the articles of confederation reinstated.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 02:13 |
|
ErIog posted:
Don't forget their love of Centralization.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:00 |
|
King Metal posted:I think somebody posted about the Galt's Gulch libertarian paradise in Chile once. Well, I wanted to see if I could go there and touch/smell the poop so I started looking for some news about it. This was the first thing that popped up. I think I'll still drive by and see if it's burned down yet I love a good libertarian nation attempt story. They all end hilariously. Like the Republic of Minerva! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva#Republic_of_Minerva
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:26 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Is the name of that magazine supposed to be ironic? The Economist is better than US right-wing publications (not that it's saying much), but they still revert to "free market uber alles" when the chips are down.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 03:59 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Lest we forget Master Shake's suggested amendments to the constituuution:
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:10 |
|
Hazo posted:I've been seeing #1 pop up a bunch in libertarian/conservative screeds lately. Why has that become a right-wing thing? I think it's just generalized dislike for politicians and corruption. Of course they're convinced the problem is the other side's politicians, not theirs though. It doesn't really strike me as particularly unreasonable or noteworthy, really icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:13 |
|
I think that legislative term limits have been a thing for right-wing populists for a long time.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:15 |
|
Lycus posted:I think that legislative term limits have been a thing for right-wing populists for a long time. This forum here flirted with it a bit until there was a frank discussion about what the practical ramifications were.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:18 |
|
RuanGacho posted:This forum here flirted with it a bit until there was a frank discussion about what the practical ramifications were. humor me, what are they?
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:29 |
|
Prester John posted:My interpretation is that this means that Ebola is going to be God's judgement on Muslims and Despite the caveat at the end of your post, I hope this and the incompetent Secret Service doesn't lead to an attempt on Obama's life.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:33 |
|
quote:RUSH: Gary in Roseville, California. Welcome. It's just right up the road from Sacramento. Hello. Hey man maybe you should dial down on the doomsaying because you're legitimately freaking the gently caress out of some of your listeners gently caress you! You can't point out one instance of anything I said that was counterfactual! If you were more sure of your opinions they automagically become the truth! quote:RUSH: We have our usual roster of news regarding Ebola today, and there are a lot of contradictions going on. The president said some time ago (imitating Obama), "Don't sweat it. It's very hard to get it, very unlikely it's gonna be here." And now that it's here, the president had a meeting last night to discuss protocols. Great timing. After it's here, we're now gonna discuss what to do about it. So it's quite a lengthy roster of sound bites I have on it. Someone actually in Spain posted:... quote:RUSH: "Neighbors of the Ebola patient in..." Have you heard this? I was wondering how long this was gonna take, and it's happened. The Reverend Jackson is on his way to Dallas. Grab audio sound bite number 14. Roger Staubach's daughter is a member of the Dallas City Council. Now, Dallas City Council elections are officially nonpartisan, but the neighbors of the Ebola patient feel discriminated against. Man he is all over those Liberian people being illegal immigrants. He is just so sure of it that it has to be true! kik2dagroin fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:44 |
|
N. Senada posted:humor me, what are they? I think that the thought of endless streams of freshman congressmen is probably number 1 on the 'what lobbyists have wet dreams of', for one. For another can you imagine anything worse than a lame duck lawmaker? Like, presidents can coast because who gives a poo poo he doesn't have any actual power, but these people actually have power.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 05:48 |
|
N. Senada posted:humor me, what are they? edit: should have refreshed: Tatum Girlparts posted:I think that the thought of endless streams of freshman congressmen is probably number 1 on the 'what lobbyists have wet dreams of', for one.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:26 |
|
Hazo posted:This, exactly. Like icantfindaname, I don't see why it's particularly unreasonable or rightist to be fond of the idea Because it's been in place for decades on end in multiple jurisdictions, none of them showing any benefit from doing so. You know what they say about the definition of insanity? Hazo posted:I mean yeah, this is a potential problem but I'm still not seeing how it'd be significantly worse than the current system of favoritism and nepotism for lobbyists and congressmen. See any jurisdiction with them: http://ballotpedia.org/State_legislatures_with_term_limits Or maybe more importantly, see how the states that had them but have since repealed them have suffered no ill effects from the repeal? You should ask yourself, if you can't find a reason it would actually improve the situation, why do it?
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:39 |
|
N. Senada posted:humor me, what are they? This actually came up in the USPol thread a few days ago. A few good posts from that discussion: Mo_Steel posted:Why would we need term limits? If the answer is to prevent politicians from being entrenched and unremovable, then why not vote them out? If the answer to that is we can't because of gerrymandering, then the real problem is with our electoral process and not the length of terms; if we can't because of massive monied influence protecting them, then the real problem is with our campaign finance laws and not the length of terms; if we can't because they make good votes that the people support then there's no problem. Biffmotron posted:From California Crackup, term limits are a disaster. Legislators aren't just perpetually running for their own jobs, they're perpetually running for some other job in the devil's own game of musical chairs. There's no institutional knowledge, no incentive to compromise, no reward for long term thinking, and the actual power goes to lobbyists (who metastasized in Sacramento after term limits were introduced) and unelected Party officials. Shittastic as Congress is right now, term limits would somehow make it even worse. Pope Guilty posted:The key line is
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:49 |
|
Exactly the sort of information I was looking for. Thanks for the links and quotes; I'm still not sold on why it's such a horrible idea but I'll be interested in reading more.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 06:57 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:06 |
|
To add, from longer ago discussions, with the way the Senate and House are otherwise structured right now, you end up with all the committees being as effective and knowledgeable about subjects as their high school counterparts. You get increased instances of idiots like Lamar Smith being in charge of things they have no place being anywhere near. You lose all ability for congress to resist outside pressure (as alluded to by other posters) and you basically invite a lot of headaches and incompetence you'd never see suggested as a good idea to strive for in the private sector. The thing to remember is that the problem is probably too much elected influence in the machinery of government, at the local level you get governments that will give staff direction to enact a plan and then, because of someone bloviating on the national level, gets swept out of power and you now have a whole new set of bosses who don't understand how anything works at all but gosh darn it they were elected for a reason! Now tax payers have just had their staff resources wasted for the past 18 months as the new government throws out everything the previous one did because of principles, as their constituents have been screaming at them "Why did my property taxes go up 26% in the past year?!" (Well a school bond passed and your property value has gained 35% in the past year). These inexperienced elected officials then say things in public like "I don't understand why reducing staff means a reduction in services." or "The Government is wasteful and too big" never mind that only the insane and uneducated would assert that a private business was running staff at 10-15% extra capacity just because it can. All of this, how staff actually functions at every size of government requires some institutional knowledge and cycling politicians out does very little except remove said knowledge from the system. I may be mistaken but I think most liberal leaning people would prefer competence and technocratic behavior in their governments rather than inefficiency and incompetence. Despite what others may protest otherwise. So if the issue is that they're all bums, throw them out you're not really addressing the issues. When people call for term limits they're thinking of people like Diane Feinstein and other congressional institutions, but the problem isn't that she's been in office too long, the problem is she was never suited to office in the first place and the Democrats, unless someone actually primaries her successfully (ha) are never going to unseat her and we're back to playing this idiotic game of who controls the Senate by who has enough of their team in the seats. Pretty much any issue you can think of that term limits would fix, has other causes and wouldn't be fixed effectively enough to be worth any tangible benefit you may want to name and it will have repercussions you may not have considered. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 07:11 |