|
Zeroisanumber posted:The Times has a hard-on for destroying Hillary's career. I don't know the history of it, but it certainly seems to color their coverage of her.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
But it really does seem like it is institutionally ingrained at the NYT, they have been at the forefront of basically every Clinton Foundation and e-mail story these past few months and they really don't seem to give a poo poo that half their reporting is just baseless speculation and inaccuracies. They even teamed up with the Clinton Cash author, the same guy who wrote: quote:Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less … and even hug their children more than liberals
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:But it really does seem like it is institutionally ingrained at the NYT, they have been at the forefront of basically every Clinton Foundation and e-mail story these past few months and they really don't seem to give a poo poo that half their reporting is just baseless speculation and inaccuracies. Just from the people I know, I find it very hard to believe conservatives are happier than liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Just from the people I know, I find it very hard to believe conservatives are happier than liberals. Happiness in the mind of the conservative doesn't work like happiness does in the minds of people - the conservative derives what it calls happiness by harming others, denying human rights to people or literally watching them starve. A happy conservative is one that sees a country mobilizing for war while creating an underclass based on immutable personal characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation. The conservative thrives on harm and cannot be happy without participating in harm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Happiness in the mind of the conservative doesn't work like happiness does in the minds of people - the conservative derives what it calls happiness by harming others, denying human rights to people or literally watching them starve. A happy conservative is one that sees a country mobilizing for war while creating an underclass based on immutable personal characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation. The conservative thrives on harm and cannot be happy without participating in harm. This sounded kind of hyperbolic and extreme to me, but then I asked myself "Have I ever known a Conservative to express genuine happiness with the idea of World Peace?" Yeah that's a big loving No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
How are u posted:This sounded kind of hyperbolic and extreme to me, but then I asked myself "Have I ever known a Conservative to express genuine happiness with the idea of World Peace?" Oh don't worry, some asshat will come around and be like "NAW BRO YOURE JUST IRRATIONALLY HATEFUL" not realizing that the conservative persona is one that is majority-averse, that is they fall apart completely when expected to govern. Froth-faced minority with a wall to beat their empty heads against? Hog heaven. Majority position where they're expected not to just doom millions to suffering and death through hosed-up ideals? Paralysis. Heath Ledger's Joker describes the dilemma of the conservative perfectly when describing himself as a dog chasing an car with no idea what to do if he ever caught it. The conservative thrives in the contrived environs of the "endgame battle," and crumbles everywhere else because the conservative is fundamentally incapable of being equal to the task of governance. They're on permanent campaign mode because that's the only kind of thinking left available to them as they've ceded everything else. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Just from the people I know, I find it very hard to believe conservatives are happier than liberals. FAUXTON posted:Happiness in the mind of the conservative [...]
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
meristem posted:They are more susceptible to fear, including fear of death, and hence need a 'tidier', 'smaller', less chaotic and diverse world to comfort them. Provide it to them - in whatever form, from the 1950s conformance society to the high structure of an authoritarian party - and they will be happy. Force change, and they really, really won't. Read Jost's study. You reworded everything I said in prettier language and then asked if I was hilariously citing Hitler. The gently caress are you on about? The conservative mind doesn't work unless it has an "other" against which to rage. Be it blacks, gays, civil society , poors, they need an underclass to feel normal. They're the emotional (and often genetic) ancestors of the old confederate traitors who justified keeping human beings as farm equipment by saying it stabilized society through a common class consciousness since the poorest white was still a person as opposed to a black slave, who was basically an expensive shovel. You said it yourself - they'll be happy if they get sent back prior to Brown v Board so they know they can say they're superior to someone and can exist in a "tidy" world where they know there's a dark-skinned neck on which they can always rest their jackboot. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You reworded everything I said in prettier language and then asked if I was hilariously citing Hitler. The gently caress are you on about? The conservative mind doesn't work unless it has an "other" against which to rage. Be it blacks, gays, civil society , poors, they need an underclass to feel normal. They're the emotional (and often genetic) ancestors of the old confederate traitors who justified keeping human beings as farm equipment by saying it stabilized society through a common class consciousness since the poorest white was still a person as opposed to a black slave, who was basically an expensive shovel. You said it yourself - they'll be happy if they get sent back prior to Brown v Board so they know they can say they're superior to someone and can exist in a "tidy" world where they know there's a dark-skinned neck on which they can always rest their jackboot. And no, I did not say the rest of these things. Human society evolved in a certain way. In every generation, there is a tiny group of innovators, and a larger group that's somewhat more fearful/averse to change. That, on average, must have made evolutionary sense. So did homophilic assortativity. It's just... that's the way human minds work. You seem very angry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
meristem posted:I asked you that, because fuckdamn, a statement such as "[...]the conservative doesn't work like [...] the minds of people" and "the conservative derives what it calls happiness" sounded to me like something straight out of Mein Kampf if you put "the Jew" instead of "the conservative". Googling didn't give me any result, so I asked; I wasn't sure if I was being Poe's law'd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
meristem posted:And no, I did not say the rest of these things. quote:They are more susceptible to fear, including fear of death, and hence need a 'tidier', 'smaller', less chaotic and diverse world to comfort them. Provide it to them - in whatever form, from the 1950s conformance society to the high structure of an authoritarian party - and they will be happy. The conservative cannot stably exist, mentally, in a world which doesn't provide it with a compartmentalized villain. Federalist, Abolitionist, Suffragist, Communist, Terrorist, these aren't absolute hallucinations but they're being leveraged and overblown by the typical conservative specimen to feed that desire of a "bad guy" against which it can "fight." For the conservative, having a villain enables an animalistic view of society - binary "with us or against us" judgements overrule all thought. No nuance, no consideration of broader, multi-faceted goals, either a person is a Bad Guy or a Good Guy and the conservative responds accordingly. Throw it into a world where there's a decision to be made between islamists and a totalitarian caliphate and it just shatters, lashing out against everything, offering no solution other than regional extermination campaigns. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Just from the people I know, I find it very hard to believe conservatives are happier than liberals. I think there's a difference between reactionaries and mostly oblivious closed-minded, bigoted and unintellectual people. The first group is probably not happier than liberals, the second group probably is IMO
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The conservative cannot stably exist, mentally, in a world which doesn't provide it with a compartmentalized villain. Religious fundamentalists were behind the drive to end slavery in Britain. William Wilberforce was a goddamn weirdo. Achieving societal goals, whether for wrong or for good, does require a certain force of people ready to submit their egos to the necessities of "the team". The flipside of conservatist unanimity is liberal fractiousness. A society composed just of liberals wouldn't last long. And, I dunno. As a woman, I could say things like, Men are just bundles of walking rage and hormones. They are responsible for 90% of crimes, for the majority of wars and violence. They lack empathy, have problems expressing their emotions, and, when they lose, they take it out on women. Castrate them chemically until they want to have kids, and forever afterwards; castrate them all. And, yeah, so? How would this be non-crazy? And this is exactly like you seem to me. Raging against the human nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
HFT is vaguely bad in that it lets a new form of front running exist
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
meristem posted:So? Except there's been societal and religious prejudices placing a bias on men being at the helm of cultures since practically forever with very few counterexamples. Human nature isn't predisposed toward racism or sexism, but it is defined by a constant internal struggle between where altruism ends and self-preservation begins. What you cite is an example of the ravages of the conservative mental state. It isn't something that cropped up in America specifically in the 20th century, and it sure as poo poo isn't confined to one religion or even religion at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Happiness in the mind of the conservative doesn't work like happiness does in the minds of people - the conservative derives what it calls happiness by harming others, denying human rights to people or literally watching them starve. A happy conservative is one that sees a country mobilizing for war while creating an underclass based on immutable personal characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation. The conservative thrives on harm and cannot be happy without participating in harm. Err "the conservative"? Turning normal people into un-persons is a terrific way to end up just like any group you claim to have moral superiority to, if you haven't already. Cut that poo poo out. http://www.villagevoice.com/music/ask-andrew-wk-my-dad-is-a-right-wing-rear end in a top hat-6644226 Edit: That being said living in the south for most of my life, I can say that I've yet to meet a politically active conservative that is actually happy. But then I've yet to meet many humans who are just happy all the time. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
You all need to lower your expectations when dealing with the Fauxton and realize that intelligence cannot be wrung from such a defective construct. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Err "the conservative"? Turning normal people into un-persons is a terrific way to end up just like any group you claim to have moral superiority to, if you haven't already. Cut that poo poo out. Would you feel better if I said "a conservative?" Living on the Meth Coast of Florida for all but the past 8 years of my life has shown me how deep their depravity goes and how far a conservative will go to be able to put their boot on a neck. E: that Andrew WK letter comes off like that one Hitler sketch where he's downplaying genocide and saying the anti-fascist has growing up to do. Does anyone reecall how many of Dylann Roof's friends said they knew he was a virulent racist but were never brave enough to confront him on his hosed-up mentality? Accepting the conservative mental state as "different strokes" just normalizes the aberrant hatred inherent to a way of thinking that will create an existential threat for itself to feel normal. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:HFT is not bad in that it adds a lot of liquidity to the market Fixed that for you! But seriously, HFT is going to continue being a thing everywhere because it does add liquidity, which any market needs, and the one year realized return rule hasn't killed it, so a two year rule won't either. Make it a five year rule IMO, but nobody asked me so 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
I remember two threads vividly from my first couple months in D&D. One was rich goons arguing that they're basically the same as poor goons since if they became permanently unemployed tomorrow they'd have to choose between a vacation home or a boat. The other was a page of how the "liberalism is a mental disease" meme is not only incorrect but ideologically poisonous and inherently a bad-faith argument, followed by two pages of the same posters insisting that conservatism honestly and scientifically is a mental disease. I guess I haven't seen one of those in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Edit: Eh, nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh don't worry, some asshat will come around and be like "NAW BRO YOURE JUST IRRATIONALLY HATEFUL" not realizing that the conservative persona is one that is majority-averse, that is they fall apart completely when expected to govern. Froth-faced minority with a wall to beat their empty heads against? Hog heaven. Majority position where they're expected not to just doom millions to suffering and death through hosed-up ideals? Paralysis. Heath Ledger's Joker describes the dilemma of the conservative perfectly when describing himself as a dog chasing an car with no idea what to do if he ever caught it. The conservative thrives in the contrived environs of the "endgame battle," and crumbles everywhere else because the conservative is fundamentally incapable of being equal to the task of governance. They're on permanent campaign mode because that's the only kind of thinking left available to them as they've ceded everything else. I'm liberal enough that I'm voting for Sanders no matter what, but I think you should give it a rest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Radical leftists tend to use bombs if Haymarket and the weather underground are anything to go by The Black Panthers and the Symbonese Liberation Army were famous for armed robbery of banks and getting into gun battles with police. Fried Chicken posted:Maybe instead of standing around outside looking tough, they should go inside and enlist The even more hilarious thing about this is that guy never served in the military. Also, he accidentally discharged the gun after he handed it over to an onlooker and it was passed back to him. Yes, he let a complete stranger let him hold his loaded gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Bad news for Bernie. Despite favorability jumping from 12% to 24%, his favorability among non-white Democrats trails Hillary by an astounding 55 points and among conservative Democrats he trails by 54. Neither is all that favorable for a prospective national run. The problem with numbers like those is that drawing strong conclusions from them is mostly bullshit because it ignores the fact that what look like shocking low favorability ratings for, say, Sanders or O'Malley or any non-Clinton is that they ignore that those low numbers are driven by the fact that basically nobody has heard of them. Net approval is probably a better alternative than just looking at approval ratings when talking about candidates who don't have a strong national profile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Trust me my father is a hardcore conservative. He's not happy...
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Fixed that for you! 1) "Lack of Liquidity" is a made-up problem for the NYSE (it has plenty of liquidity), 2) HFT is inevitably exploitative (where the machine can't tell when it's engaging in market manipulation - the algorithms are "unsupervised" [in both a formal statistical model sense and in a practical sense]), and 3) Algorithmic trading is an archetypal example of a moocher class, which uses existing capital to squeeze more unearned capital out of a system without providing any value-added to anything. Also worth mentioning that it could very easily be limited in practice by a simple Tobin tax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:1) "Lack of Liquidity" is a made-up problem for the NYSE (it has plenty of liquidity), 1) Holy poo poo, someone talking about HFT who refers to NYSE as if it's the only relevant exchange. Also, no poo poo NYSE doesn't have liquidity problems - they have market makers, and market makers engage in HFT because they don't want to get screwed. 2) Supervision is a regulatory requirement, and what does unsupervised learning have to do with something being exploitative? This is just nonsense. 3) Wait, you think algorithmic trading and HFT are the same thing? And you don't realize that algorithmic trading is used across the spectrum to lower costs and risk? ohgodwhat posted:Why do people who know nothing about HFT always say this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Finished the divide, I now have a simmering hated for myself, my country and my system of government.  Started in on griftopia and I don't think it is gonna get any better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:1) Holy poo poo, someone talking about HFT who refers to NYSE as if it's the only relevant exchange. Also, no poo poo NYSE doesn't have liquidity problems - they have market makers, and market makers engage in HFT because they don't want to get screwed. I don't know what you're banging on about, but the NYSE is an exemplar (not an equivalent), HFT is a form of algorithmic trading (not an equivalent), and the algorithms will inevitably subtly manipulate markets because they don't know the concept of market manipulation and thus don't know the ethical line (it just does whatever impenetrable thing is profitable). But thanks for immediately being an obtuse blowhard with a fetish for false equivalence I guess.  quote:Started in on griftopia and I don't think it is gonna get any better. This is the one you want next
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I don't know what you're banging on about, but the NYSE is an exemplar (not an equivalent), It's an example of an exchange with liquidity? Good work, it's still a dumb example if your point is that HFT doesn't add liquidity, since HFT is certainly at play on NYSE. If that wasn't what you meant, what was the whole point of #1 anyway? quote:HFT is a form of algorithmic trading (not an equivalent), Yes but your point was that algorithmic trading adds nothing of value, which is wrong, as both HFT and the larger class of algorithmic trading can and do add value. Not in all cases and abusive HFT should be eliminated, but that's a portion of HFT, not the whole thing, nor is that sort of abuse unique to HFT. quote:and the algorithms will inevitably subtly manipulate markets because they don't know the concept of market manipulation and thus don't know the ethical line (it just does whatever impenetrable thing is profitable). Just because you don't know the algorithms that are used doesn't mean the people who write them as well as implement their limits - limits with respect to financial, legal and regulatory risk, don't know what's going on. Also lol at the idea that non algorithmic trading "knows the ethical line" quote:But thanks for immediately being an obtuse blowhard with a fetish for false equivalence I guess. It's frustrating that people read a good Michael Lewis book and assume they know everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
You're moving the goalposts. Saying HFT is "at play" in the NYSE isn't really saying much of anything at all. My point is that the NYSE is an example of an exchange that doesn't have a liquidity problem, and wouldn't even if you took away HFT. The practice isn't necessary and "liquidity" problems are about as real as faeries. Further, the algorithms are impenetrable by design. They aren't meant to help traders understand the market. They're meant to build whatever model is necessary to make money. In stats, we draw a distinction between "explanation" and "prediction" models. HFT algorithms predict, but they don't explain a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Computers have completely transformed how stocks are traded - why can't the state transform the job market with similar technology? When individuals have opportunity to work - to earn their living - they will take it. An Uber-like model of individual initiative, combined with open access to education, can transform the economy - the nation will be a campus of entrepreneurs. All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:You're moving the goalposts. Saying HFT is "at play" in the NYSE isn't really saying much of anything at all. My point is that the NYSE is an example of an exchange that doesn't have a liquidity problem, and wouldn't even if you took away HFT. The practice isn't necessary and "liquidity" problems are about as real as faeries. Moving the goalposts my rear end. Maybe say what you mean in the first place? My point has been and always will be that some market participants who need to engage in HFT are beneficial to the markets, primarily for providing liquidity. Maybe you could clearly state your point as well? It would help. You were the one who mentioned NYSE doesn't have liquidity problems, in response to someone saying HFT helps liquidity, which makes zero sense unless you're claiming that NYSE's market makers don't engage in HFT. Why don't you back that up? That market makers would be fine showing just as much volume at just as tight spreads without HFT? It would be more interesting than going in circles about machines not understanding ethics. And the exchanges are fighting constantly for liquidity, why do you think some exchanges pay rebates? I guess you should go tell them it isn't a problem.  quote:Further, the algorithms are impenetrable by design. They aren't meant to help traders understand the market. They're meant to build whatever model is necessary to make money. In stats, we draw a distinction between "explanation" and "prediction" models. HFT algorithms predict, but they don't explain a thing. 1) You do not know the breadth of HFT algos, just like I don't, so that's a big loving statement to make 2) What does this have to do with manipulation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:When individuals have opportunity to work - to earn their living - they will take it. An Uber-like model of individual initiative, combined with open access to education, can transform the economy - the nation will be a campus of entrepreneurs. All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace. So you're talking in flowery terms about basic income. Or negative taxation if you want to get real libertarian about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:46
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Forever_Peace posted:I don't know what you're banging on about, but the NYSE is an exemplar (not an equivalent), HFT is a form of algorithmic trading (not an equivalent), and the algorithms will inevitably subtly manipulate markets because they don't know the concept of market manipulation and thus don't know the ethical line (it just does whatever impenetrable thing is profitable). But thanks for immediately being an obtuse blowhard with a fetish for false equivalence I guess. All The Devils Are Here is really well written; it's also astounding how many hosed up actions went into the crisis. Just layers upon layers of hosed up poo poo whereby investment bankers created a towering convoluted heap of poo poo that they sold as gold and then were somehow surprised when it collapsed and their precious mathematical models they were relying on for risk assessment were wrong on multiple levels from single cases to lacking any notion of systemic risk because of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So you're talking in flowery terms about basic income. Or negative taxation if you want to get real libertarian about it. Yes. It's merging that idea with the rhetoric of disruptive technology and Silicon Valley's origin on college campuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
The reason HFT is bullshit is because it replaces valid price competition in the market with artificial speed competition down to the fraction of a second. At the pace the market is operating at the market for any single stock is so thin that actual price competition rarely happens. With actual physical goods some competitiveness over speed makes sense. If you're in an apple market then the guy who has apples in front of him to buy right now instead of next week is in a better position. The guy who has the cash in his pocket to purchase apples instead of needing to bring it next week is in a better position to buy. The way that market clears makes intuitive logistical sense, and some competition in terms of the speed of a deal makes sense. It does not make any logistical sense, however, for a computerized market just pushing data around to favor speed competition by allowing HFT. The reform that should happen is to quantize the pace of the trades to a half-second or full-second pace. Right now the market is unhealthily thin, and it leads to lots of crazy maneuvering to wring out extremely marginal gains through arbitrage. Executing orders only every so often would bring price competition back to the market, and also make it stop favoring firms that shell out the money to put their equipment in the data centers with the fastest links to the trading computers. HFT hurts anyone operating in the market without sufficient capital to engage in HFT. It's basically just handing bonuses to high rollers in the market for being high rollers. Yeah, you need some kind of HFT algorithm in order to accomplish that, but if you hire enough programmers it seems likely you can derive some benefit as evidenced by the amount of HFT going on in the market. So at that point engaging in HFT just becomes an issue of tossing enough capital at the problem. If you believe in fair, healthy, and sane markets then you should really be opposed to HFT. It incentives terrible behavior and market distortions with the fun bonus that cascades can murder the market in the time it takes for a trader to blink his eyes. ErIog fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Rather than poo poo up the thread with lectures on the nature of machine learning algorithms, here's a collection of more thread-germane things: - Dennis Rodman endorses the one true candidate - The FDA announced yesterday that it's considering adding %DV to sugar on nutrition labels. It's ludicrous that they don't already and this is an important step. - The national archives just dropped 350 pictures of the executive branch during 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:- The FDA announced yesterday that it's considering adding %DV to sugar on nutrition labels. It's ludicrous that they don't already and this is an important step. The sugar lobby will cah-rush this immediately, and people will continue to hoover up refined sugars without any readily-available context. Freedom 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Rather than poo poo up the thread with lectures on the nature of machine learning algorithms, here's a collection of more thread-germane things: Eh, it's an interesting alternative to the clusterfuck we have today. McDowell posted:Yes. It's merging that idea with the rhetoric of disruptive technology and Silicon Valley's origin on college campuses. There's definitely a nerd appeal to having a computer run things. Milton Friedman's NIT (and fiscal policy in general) could basically be done without active human management. It takes corruption out of it, that's for sure. I'm libertarian enough to most of this subforum hurl, but I really wonder what the country would look like with state colleges that just went for breaking even on tuitions (so, no new taxes  ) in addition to, say, $1,000 a month to everyone instead of current non-medical welfare. I usually tell conservatives they'd be taxed less than current welfare and over time would lead to less gun violence/support for gun control. I've had a decent amount of success with that tack actually.Basic income was a really popular idea with old skool lolberts like F.A. Hayek or Milton Friedman but for whatever reason that's not emphasized today. Probably because it wouldn't be to the benefit of the type of businessman who can't shut the gently caress up about how much they love Ayn Rand but are the first to run to Uncle Sam for bailouts. Come to think of it, is there any problem with funding Medicaid/Medicare mostly or entirely with newly created money instead of giving that dosh straight to the banks? Assuming a world in which we had basic income of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 16:08
|
|