|
"The Economy" in this scenario means "Rich People Getting Richer and Poor People Getting Poorer." I am okay with slowing that.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It is pathetic how bootlicking our corporate media is You know, if you're trying to use scary numbers to bullshit people into not taxing the wealthy, you're supposed to make the scary number actually large and scary as opposed to literally less than a single digit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It is pathetic how bootlicking our corporate media is sure, good thing it'd be counteracted by government spending
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It is pathetic how bootlicking our corporate media is https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104 What an amazing analysis pulled right from Mr. Zucman's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Ikari Worrier posted:You know, if you're trying to use scary numbers to bullshit people into not taxing the wealthy, you're supposed to make the scary number actually large and scary as opposed to literally less than a single digit. actually slowing growth by 0.2 percentage points a year would be a relatively big deal, as typical growth is ~2% or so and 3% is high. so that's saying you'd cut growth by ~10%. don't have a subscription to the nyt though to see if the study actually supports that at all. Angry_Ed posted:https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104 loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool yeah this is utter garbage. taking money from the wealthy and putting it into circulation would be expected to be growth-positive because you're boosting spending. of course if you leave out the spending it looks bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
jesus they're really doing everything in their power to pretend that sanders doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Robert Evans did an ep on 8chan today and endorsed Something Awful as "still not a completely toxic pile of radicalism". Good work, mods. This was excellent and goes deep into the history of 8chan from its original founder. You might be familiar with Frank Brennan as he's been on television and the internet defending 8chan a lot until about 2014. Since then he's turned away from the site and is currently trying to keep it from being revived. For those not already aware, 8chan spawned a rash of terrorist attacks, including the Christchurch mosque shooting which was broadcast live on 8chan. Robert Evans was a goon and was banned at around age 15 for being a racist shithead. He went to college, was radicalized, grew up and went hard left. Brennan could be following on something of a similar path, though he found religion instead. Though he admitted that finding community was what was important to him just as much as religion itself. He ran hard into what happens when free speech is totally unrestricted. There was also him being repeatedly bit in the rear end by his libertarian values and taken advantage of due to the fact that he was disabled. In a libertarian world, if you don't have leverage and don't have an iron clad contract, you will get hosed over. Stopping 8chan from reforming is essential to keep more mass shootings from happening again. Tucows is currently decided if it wants to host it or not. HONG KONG SLUMLORD posted:Behind the Bastards is very good but can be hard to listen to when you see insanely awful people do insanely awful poo poo and basically never see any repercussions from it. I love it but goddamn some of the episodes (like the ones about the adoptions) can get downright depressing. It's a pro listen if you can deal with the fact that evil poo poo happens. He's done three episodes on Jeffrey Epstein and filled in a lot of the blanks on my own worldview. He did arrive at the hypothesis that Epstein wasn't killed in his latest show, which I disagree with, but I can understand how he arrived at that decision. Personally I don't think that it matters if he was murdered or killed himself as he provided a service to the wealthy, influential and powerful and they have largely been allowed to walk away. evilweasel posted:yeah, you want to look for candidates who refuse to rule it out and talk generally about how outrageous trump's judges are I think that pushing the narrative that judges at the supreme court level not as judges, but unelected, partisan politicians would go a long way towards getting people to either pack the court or neuter it. The supreme court has been for most of its history has been an institution captured by conservatism. It wasn't ever meant to have the power that it does right now and it instead assigned itself powers beyond what was assigned it in Marbury versus Madison. Further, some justices have zero care for law when it went against their own partisan interests. Reading over some of Scalia's old opinions shows that he just did not give a gently caress for example. When it suited his purposes to act as a judge, he acted as one. When it suited his purposes to act as a partisan politician, he acted as one. And the recall process for a supreme court judge is too difficult for someone not actually executing their job or doing so in bad faith. Most of the legal legwork for them is handled by the lower courts. The vast majority of the time they have their minds made up even before lawyers come to argue before the court, whose ability to change minds is vanishingly small. If the politicians are corrupt, they will elect corrupt judges. Cavanaugh should be in prison right now for repeatedly lying under oath. Instead he's a supreme court justice. And he was elected because Mitch McConnel violated the rules via which judges are picked by delaying under bullshit conventions, breaking the law. The court is already illegitimate. Pack the loving courts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OhioHouseDems/status/1194721591382433792 https://twitter.com/WSBT/status/1195095642894487555
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:actually slowing growth by 0.2 percentage points a year would be a relatively big deal, as typical growth is ~2% or so and 3% is high. so that's saying you'd cut growth by ~10%. turns out if you actively pretend the goal is to do the opposite of what she suggests, the plan is bad great headline as usual from the NYT
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
"Nearly 0.2 percentage points". The presence of weasel words in that headline is noted (in addition to everything else already mentioned). Also, it's time to pack the federal circuit courts (if it's possible beyond the usual 'decorum' hand wringing) as well as the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:actually slowing growth by 0.2 percentage points a year would be a relatively big deal, as typical growth is ~2% or so and 3% is high. so that's saying you'd cut growth by ~10%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104 loving mega lol. Rich people will get richer at a slower rate; we didn't analyse it any further.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:gently caress this is really bad news, but not so much for the subpoenas because only trump appointees are insane enough to agree with the positions he's taking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104 It also ignores the fact that overall economic growth is not the same as putting money in the pockets of the poor and middle class. We've known since the 80's that it's quite possible to have an economy growing at a roar where the rich are getting incredibly rich and real wages for most people are going down. Is it worthwhile to slow economic growth by 0.2% in exchange for increasing income growth among the 99% by, say, 5%? It may be, that's a reasonable discussion to have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Okay, now compare those numbers to “starting trade wars with everyone because you still don’t know what a tariff is” and get back to me i pretty much wholeheartedly support the wealth tax, though the chances of it being struck down by a non-packed supreme court are quite high i wasn't agreeing with the analysis just interpreting that those numbers are, in fact, quite serious if they were true (and it has already been demonstrated they are not)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1195090365935542272?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
And the "loving duh" award of the week goes to CNN!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"at will employment" means that by default you can be fired for no reason (but not an illegal reason: i.e. i can fire you because i woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but i may not fire you because you wouldn't go to bed with me). you can, theoretically, contract around this and have protections around being fired - that you may not be terminated without cause without the company paying your salary for the next year. This. The biggest defence against at-will employment is to unionize so governments do both at will employment AND "right to work" to ensure those defences are not in place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Not that they really needed to. I'm sure Trump reported back faithfully to his bosses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ahmedbaba_/status/1195062592391319563?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
we don't have enough judges to handle the caseload we've already got. you can make an easy argument that we absolutely need to pack the courts just to get cases completed in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:
Reference what PJ linked to: https://www.socialintel.com/faq/ They are scraping social media and looking for bad behavior but they are required to tell you about it and give you a copy if they decide not to hire you because of it. quote:Do I need to get consent to run a social media screening? The way I understand it, per the EEOC rules, if they're hiring a third party to scrape social media and make a judgement about your character to use as a factor in hiring you, they must do two things: 1. Inform you that they're doing this and get your consent. 2. Inform you that negative information was found and that you have a right to get the report. If they didn't do #1 then you won't get #2. Typically you don't get to the background check stage until after you've cleared the hurdles of getting hired in the first place. You should not need to request this information, it's supposed to be provided to you. If they are doing some kind of pre-employment screening involving scraping social media without informing you, without your consent, and basing hiring decisions on it, they are breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104 Mr. Succman says taxing billionaires is bad because *wet fart*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It is pathetic how bootlicking our corporate media is https://twitter.com/daweiner/status/1194975995205423104?s=21 Oh I see
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It is pathetic how bootlicking our corporate media is 0.2 % a year over a decade knock me over with a feather. NYtimes increasingly bad these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:0.2 % a year over a decade knock me over with a feather. NYtimes increasingly bad these days. lol. Increasingly they say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
My new diet with fewer cheeseburgers is anticipated to reduce my weight by 10 pounds over the next year according to the dieticians. They did not evaluate my replacing them with buckets of fried chicken however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
It's also just kind of pointless to discuss economic growth in a vacuum like this. Even if this was an honest study, that 0.2% loss in YOY growth isn't a bad price to pay if it means funding universal healthcare or college tuition programs. It's funny that they can't even come up with a winning argument fighting on their own turf, but this is still a silly way to discuss major social issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Zucman is Mark Zuckerberg's nom de plume and no one will convince me otherwise
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:0.2 % a year over a decade knock me over with a feather. NYtimes increasingly bad these days. again, that would absolutely be a big deal if it were true, which it is not
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:lol. Increasingly they say. Don’t get me wrong they’ve been terrible for awhile but, drat, it feels like each week the rot gets worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Ikari Worrier posted:You know, if you're trying to use scary numbers to bullshit people into not taxing the wealthy, you're supposed to make the scary number actually large and scary as opposed to literally less than a single digit. It also neglects to factor in things LIKE PEOPLE NOT DYING BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD INSULIN
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:again, that would absolutely be a big deal if it were true, which it is not It really wouldn't be some massive deal in the real world. The "economy" doesn't move in lock step and US GDP growth fluctuates like crazy from year to year. Just comparing a 0.2% reduction to the average is ridiculous because it obscures how much variance actually exists. It is not even remotely clear how a loss like that would actually play out in the real world or which sectors would even be impacted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It really wouldn't be some massive deal in the real world. The "economy" doesn't move in lock step and US GDP growth fluctuates like crazy from year to year. Just comparing a 0.2% reduction to the average is ridiculous because it obscures how much variance actually exists. It is not even remotely clear how a loss like that would actually play out in the real world or which sectors would even be impacted. Also with climate armageddon coming, it might be a decent time to shed the idea of eternal economic growth being sustainable
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
i am harry posted:It also neglects to factor in things LIKE PEOPLE NOT DYING BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD INSULIN I can’t put a dollar amount on that and therefore it is not meaningful
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
i am harry posted:It also neglects to factor in things LIKE PEOPLE NOT DYING BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD INSULIN Can't economically exploit people if they're dead
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
11/14 Never Forget that guy who works on a national butterfly sanctuary on the US-Mexico border and voted Trump and lost his job when the government shut down the butterfly sanctuary and had the gall to act surprised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It really wouldn't be some massive deal in the real world. The "economy" doesn't move in lock step and US GDP growth fluctuates like crazy from year to year. Just comparing a 0.2% reduction to the average is ridiculous because it obscures how much variance actually exists. It is not even remotely clear how a loss like that would actually play out in the real world or which sectors would even be impacted. I mean, we are arguing over a completely moot point because the study was bullshit but cutting growth by an average of 10% per year over a decade matters a whole hell of a lot more than most economic policy. It’s just a moot point because the study was full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Can't economically exploit people if they're dead No but there is a spreadsheet somewhere on how many you can let die before it starts to hurt your profits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
So Trump is continuing to gently caress with South Korea https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/trump-south-korea-troops-price-hike/index.html quote:Washington (CNN)Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump. They probably refused to investigate Andrew Yang or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 00:17
|
|
