OldGimletEye

Members
  • Content count

    7,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

  • Rank
    Assistant To The Assistant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Straight Outta Flea Bottom

Recent Profile Visitors

14,475 profile views
  1. If I may, just let me throw my two cents in here. If the Republican Party were to seriously consider passing single payer, it’s something the Democratic Party would have to seriously consider working with Republicans on. I’m very sympathetic to your argument. And I agree the GOP would likely get the support to pass such a bill. The downside would of course would be that it might very well cement Republican Power, in the short term, at least, and help to get Trump reelected. The upside is that it would be a huge policy win for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party may not get another chance at such an opportunity for a very long time. The reality is though, I don’t think the Republican Party would ever go for it. Sure, many “clothe coat Republicans” might have little problem with it. But, the intellectual infrastructure that makes up the Conservative movement would fight it tooth and nail along with their wealthy donors. You’d see, I’d imagine, the Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Manhattan Institute, etc. etc. go into overdrive trying to defeat such a bill. The implementation of single payer, I can only think, would be a decisive defeat for the conservative movement, at least from their point of view. It just seems to me that it would be something that conservatives have been preaching against, since the 1930s.
  2. LOL. It's the Democrats fault. Democrats can barely organize a fire in a match factory. But, the Trumpsters are going to blame the Democrats. Surely, neither Trump nor the Republican Party are at fault. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-blames-democrats-trumpcares-collapse
  3. Interesting, but I’m sure in the hell not getting my hopes up. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/upshot/why-trumps-base-of-support-may-be-smaller-than-it-seems.html Could of told you the Republican Party has been going insane for years, but I guess it took an Orange Swamp Thing to take it over to convince you that was true. And lets be clear here: Trump wasn’t an exogenous event that hit the poor old Republican Party. He was endogenous event that developed as a result of the Republican Party takin’ the crazy train to nuttown. ........................... Poor Republican Party!! It’s sure got itself in a jam. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/19/heres-what-health-care-looks-like-if-republicans-new-obamacare-repeal-plan-succeeds/ Back in the day, Republican Teddy Roosevelt said: Talk softly and carry a big stick. Now the Republican Party's motto is: Be a bigger talker, and don't worry if you can back up your claims. Where's that awesome Republican healthcare bill? ............................................. Today Trump says. But yesterday he was saying…... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/18/theres-a-trump-tweet-for-everything-failed-obamacare-repeal-edition/ .............................. Wait, Trump never had a viable healthcare plan? It’s only to let Obamacare fail? I’m shocked! Shocked! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/upshot/obamacares-future-now-depends-on-an-unhappy-white-house.html
  4. Sandra, what is your favorite color? Blue. No Yellow.
  5. Back in 2012, Jamie Dimon said he was “barely a Democrat”. At this time, if Jamie Dimon still is a Democrat, I think he should be invited to leave the Democratic Party and go join the Republican Party. It would seem that his elitist dumb bullshit would be better suited to the Republican Party. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/jpms-jamie-dimon-blows-up-at-washington-on-earnings-call.html One: It seems to me that Dimon simply takes no account of the slow recoveries that typically follow financial crises, in absence of aggressive action, as documented by Rogoff and Reinhart and many others. Two: Dimon’s claims about lending growth seem rather dubious. Three: Dimon’s claim of everyone is doing awesome, except the US seems rather dubious. Four: if I recall correctly Dimon was a deficit scold, back when there was no reason to be. Five: I believe Dimon called for tighter monetary policy a few years back. Yet here we are in 2017 the labor market still shows signs of slack, it would seem. Six Dimon along with Blankfein, were calling for lower equity capital requirements. Dimon and Blankfein should be flicked the bird. Related to Dimon: : ................ Moving On: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/45/making-monetary-policy-great-again/ FDR was kind of like the the Barbara Mandrell of forward guidance. He was forward guidance when forward guidance wasn’t cool. He talked quite a bit about getting back to the pre-1929 price level and then took actions to give those words credibility. I’d say: 1. Keep the full employment plank in the Democratic Party and make zero apologies for it. 2. Think about endorsing NGDP targeting. Sure it came out of more conservative leaning policy circles (from the few conservative people that were somewhat sane, unlike most of the Republican Party). The advantage is, in my mind, is that it treats inflation targets as an average to be hit, rather than a ceiling. I don’t consider it a first best solution, but given political realities it might be a realistic second best solution. 3. Be ready to use the big fiscal guns when necessary and make zero apologies for it when dealing with conservative sorts of people.
  6. I don’t know, getting thousands of men off of boats and onto a hostile beach, isn’t an exactly easy evolution to pull off. And is likely to turn into one giant goat rope, real fast, if not planned properly. And last I heard Dothraki aren’t exactly what you’d call soldiers of the sea and I don’t think neither Dany, nor Tyrion went to amphibious warfare school. Then again, it would seem getting thousands of men off boats and putting them on Dragonstone and then taking those same men and putting them back onto boats would seem like a waste of time and have the potential to turn into one giant cluster and also, I’d, assume trying to feed all those men and their horses on little ol’ Dragonstone would be a bit difficult. I always thought somewhere right around the Saltpans would be the most logical place to land thousands of men in the shortest period time possible. Of course it's not likely D & D would think any of this out. Let's remember, LF was able to march the entire Vale Army deep into the North without anybody noticing. Ramsay Bolton might be able to find 20 good men, but evidently he can’t find one fuckin’ guy, in the entire North, to do a bit of recon.
  7. Brienne would have said it, but she was too busy thinking about Stannis. Yep, logically Pod would be the source, given the fact Brienne isn’t saying anything about the whole affair come hell or high water. And I hope Pod has really good dental insurance as he is going to need it just as soon as Judge Dredd of Tarth (I am the law!) finds out about it and gives Pod a mailed fist right in the kisser . I think it is a plot point. Things should get interesting when Arya shows up to WF.
  8. For a show, that in my opinion, tries too hard to be “bad ass”, this was a good scene. Yes they are Lannister soldiers, but, they are just normal young men who would rather be somewhere else and will probably end up dying for a bad cause they have no particular reason to support. Yes, this too. I always knew Sandor had a conscience, even if allegedly the word on the street is he doesn’t.
  9. My problem with Sandra’s disagreement with Jon isn’t so much about the substance of her argument, but with her method. I’ve certainly disagreed with my bosses of mine. But, I have handled such matters privately and didn’t argue with them in public. I think anyone that has worked for anyone else, knows, that it’s generally not wise to disagree with that person publicly, particularly if you generally like and respect that person. I don’t think there is anything wrong in telling the boss that he or she is about to do a mark time march on their own crank. But, generally, I think it’s not wise to make a public spectacle of that disagreement, particularly when there is nothing patently ethically objectionable to their decision. The essential problem here is D & D’s bad writing. They think that such an act is “empowering”. It comes off, however, as undisciplined and reckless. Empowerment doesn’t mean bad judgement. They seem to think that it does.
  10. Yeah, I found Sandra publicly disagreeing with Jon to have been extremely annoying. D & D probably thought it was “empowering”, I found it to be reckless and undisciplined. Anyone that has worked for somebody else knows, it’s generally not a wise idea to disagree with the boss in public. Expressing concerns privately is one thing, but disagreeing in public, usually is not wise. Sandra comes off like Fredo trying to defend Moe Greene. Jon should pull a Michael Corleone. And then there is Sandra saying, “she learned a lot” from Carol. Like what? Arrogance? Incompetence? Smirking? This is the result, I feel of two factors. One is the white washing of Cersei and the other is the butchery of Sansa’s character. Yeah, I found the repetition about the crappy nature of Sam’s duties to have been extremely annoying. I was watching it, thinking, “uh, I think we got it.” Waste of time. With only 13 episodes left they don’t have much time to waste. Yeah, why is BatFinger telling Sandra about the Brienne & Hound fight. Why hasn’t Brienne come clean about her encounter with Arya and Sandor? Good job Brienne. The “Voldemort Keeper of the Secrets” act doesn’t reflect well upon you.
  11. Quantity has a quality all of it's own. I think Lenin said that. And that's what I said, when I opted for a case of Natty Light, over expensive micro brews, back when I was a younger man.
  12. I don't have "the explanation" for all this. I don't know what the correct answer is precisely. But, the broader point, I think, is that a social norm can get started for a variety of reasons, then continue to exist way past it's sell date. It might haven't happened "naturally" or whatever, but it doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue to exist because it happened "naturally", particularly when a fundamental right is involved, like the right to make a decent living and not have to be dependent on others. And that may mean, once in a while, interfering in libertarian's precious markets.
  13. They are not very good liars are they?
  14. At the end of the video the speaker says, “complex systems can evolve and the result is more efficient than a central planner.” Hayek made a similar argument, and I’m sure that is were the creators of the video got the idea from. Hayek though was dead wrong during the Great Depression. His patron to England, Lionel Robbins, would so conclude ultimately. Milton Friedman thinks Hayek got it wrong. And it seems to me that Hayek would ultimately so conclude. Before 1934, Hayek was running around England saying deflation wasn’t a problem. After 1934, Hayek seemingly changed his tune, after it was obvious that the deflationary spiral that affected so many countries was disastrous. Before 1934 Hayek believed that any monetary or fiscal stimulus would lead to “malinvestments”. But it seems to me the real “malinvestment” was the massive unemployed, which eroded human skill and human capital, the lost material output and the lost investment of capital stock due the deflationary cycle brought on by the Great Depression. Not to mention the enormous human suffering. Unemployment reach about 25% in the United States. In some places it was worse reaching 40% of the adult population. Had Hayekian policy proscriptions been permitted to gain ground under FDR, the misery would have likely continued. In short, letting “complex systems evolve into something more efficient” would have been a disaster. Fortunately, FDR went another route and was successful in raising inflation expectations, pushing down the real interest rate, starting off a recovery. In short, FDR’s actions were better for most people than doing nothing and letting “complex systems evolve”. Neither Say's Law nor Walrasian General Equilibrum is true, particularly if we are talking about monetary economies, which describes about every economy that has ever developed beyond mere subsistence. There is nothing in economic systems to guarantee that economic systems will always hit a desirable general equilibrium . Though neither Says Law nor Walrasian General Equilibrum hold in the real world both monetary policy and fiscal policy can make the real world resemble more closely Walrasian General Equilibrium or Say's Law. And we know now, or at least have reason to strongly suspect, that hysteresis effects are real and damaging. The long term potential supply output of both Europe and the United States was likely damaged for a long time. While austerity or the confidence fairy or whatever might be within the framework of “complex systems evolving”, it would seem it was very damaging. And it would seem to me government is not exogenous to “complex systems evolving” but rather government is endogenous to whatever evolved. Modern capitalism started in England. And it grew up with right along side with the British state. During the 18th Century England seemed to beat most of it’s rivals. Many would say British Naval power was key to its victories. I’d argue though England’s real secret was finance. England could borrow enormous sums of money, compared to it’s rivals, largely because the English were better at taxing than probably anyone in Europe. And English public finance is likely the reason British private finance was able to grow so extraordinarily as bonds issued by the British government represented very safe stores of value that the private sector probably wouldn’t have been able to provide. Libertarians would like to tell a story of capitalism developing independently of government. I don’t think that is true. And it seems to me the argument of “hey, it’s natural!, it must be a good one!” isn’t necessarily true, at least, where human societies are involved. It has been only very recently that most of society has come to accept that a women’s place isn’t confined to the home. There is a theory out there that societal norm got started with the plow technology. Thousands of years ago, for comparative advantage, reasons it might have made sense for the sexes to have a division of labor. But certainly by the 20th Century or the 19th Century or hell even the 18th Century, the original reason, certainly was no longer sensible. Yet a norm persisted and nobody could even remember how the norm got started. And persistence of that societal norm, while it may have made some sense thousands of years ago, would be a great injustice to women and there would be no particular good reason not to try to remove it, using anti-discrimination laws. There was no reason to presume, “hey it’s natural it must be a good one!” I don’t think it’s a secret at this point that I don’t think too kindly of so called “libertarians”. My problem with “libertarians” is they are often a set of smug nitwits that are simply wrong. It’s one thing to be a smug jackass. It’s quite another to be smug jackass that often makes very questionable assertions. And quite frankly, most libertarians come off as being a bunch of mainly privileged upper class white guys. And then of course there is the problem of every neo-confederate or alt right cretin trying to hide their bullshit behind the mantle of “libertarianism”. Libertarians often try to portray themselves as being a “cut above” liberals and conservatives. But the truth of the matter is they have their own brand of bullshit. I don’t agree with Trump’s wall, I’m generally favorable to free trade, understand market based economies have big advantages with their decentralized decision making, but there are decent technocratic arguments to be made there. However just saying “but, but complex systems organize…” is just an utterly fucking useless as a way of trying to understand problems and trying to fix them. And it seems to me that is a very lazy mode of thought and basically exonerates people from thinking hard about how things work. Its nothing but a big old fucking handwave. And finally, on “Democrats: There is always a victim”: I’d argue that over the last ten years millions of people were victims of libertarians. And would seem to me millions more are about to be victims, in part at least, of libertarian ideology with the Republican health care bill.
  15. I can see it now: 70 Billion + 70 Billion + “Freedom” + “Conservative Values” = 70 Billion