OldGimletEye

Members
  • Content count

    7,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

  • Rank
    Assistant To The Assistant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Straight Outta Flea Bottom

Recent Profile Visitors

15,197 profile views
  1. Today in Bush Era gimmicks that don't work, though Paul "Numbers Guy" Ryan probably thinks they are a great idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/13/trump-says-his-tax-break-will-get-companies-to-hire-more-workers-companies-say-it-wont/ Also, along with this, it's depressing that Trump is appointing people like Randal Quarles to the FED who has said some really questionable things. It's like, we haven't learned a goddamned thing since 2007. I think I need to sit down. I'm shocked, just shocked over this.
  2. Today in: Pity The Billionaire https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/12/billionaire-investor-schwarzman-i-was-accused-by-people-of-being-a-nazi/ According to this clown, Obama was planning to invade Poland, lookin for some lebensraum evidently, because he suggested raising taxes. Now cries his eyes out over being compared to a Nazi. Boo hoo. Today In: Expansionary austerity. Or when conservatives fuck you over, man they really fuck you over. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23789 Also, http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/september/disappointing-facts-about-black-white-wage-gap/
  3. Yes, the original Ross plan is junk. All it would to is just take public assets and put them on private balance sheets, merely shifting and hiding the cost (and probably making them more expensive really) and giving private firms basically monopoly power over those assets. Also, if you kind of work in or believe that there that a shortage of safe assets is behind some of our macro economic issues, it makes sense at this time to issue a few more of them ie US Treasuries. So you are right, they should not agree to any privatization scheme like the Ross plan proposed. ETA: Also many people have pointed out (like Blanchard) that a lot of the US' infrastructure needs are things that really can't be monetized anyway.
  4. If Trump were remotely competent, he’d do an infrastructure bill. The FED is still having trouble hitting it’s inflation target. Markets still seem thirsty for American Safe assets ie US Treasuries.. It would push up employment too and wage growth. (and yes, I know that the official employment numbers look low, but that is another story). And here is the part where I’m conflicted. My old full employment Democratic heart thinks we could use a little infrastructure spending. But, on the other hand, it might help get Trump elected. But, Trump is incompetent, so I guess its a moot point. I guess while bad men can be good kings, it’s also the case that bad man can also be incompetent idiots.
  5. Okay, I'll take a stab at this "libertarian" or alt right mess or whatever in the hell it is. 1. As I general rule I don't necessarily disagree with Milton Friedman's proposition. But only as a general rule. It would appear that most of the fiscal strain is short term. Longer term immigration turns into a fiscal positive. So, a nation, may have to control it's immigration somewhat to prevent short term fiscal strains, but longer term, it doesn't seem that immigration produces a strain. 2. It turns out, that letting immigrants into the country would probably help fund Social Security in the longer run. 3. A good dose of immigration helps economic growth. 4. Overall I don't see the US current level of immigration really producing much of fiscal strain. Trump has simply made up a crises that really doesn't exist. 5. And why are you trying to conflate Dreamers with "welfare benefits". Most of them are being productive. So that simply doesn't fly. 6. The average age of dreamers when they arrived at this country was about 6 years. They have been here for the entire lives. It would take a humongous act of dickishness to to remove them now. Kicking them out is really one fuck up way to make a statement about border security. 7. And no Obama's DACA order was not an illegal order. I'll be generous here and say that it sits in a rather gray area in regard to the executive's power to enforce the law and with respect to his broad powers to make immigration policy. 8. If Trump really just wanted to create a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, he could have so stated, without rescinding the DACA order, making these people fear (rightly) for their future.
  6. Thanks for explaining. Also, for future reference, I found what' seems to be an interesting tool on various countries political spending laws. http://www.idea.int/
  7. I think this is my biggest problem with the book, whether her allegations are true, partially true, or not true. It's the timing is bad. Trump is like the Night's King with a very, very, bad toupee, except I'd argue the NK has more charm, is smarter, and is probably more humane. Anyway, everyone's gotta unite to fight the Orange Night's King Swamp thing and the release of this book seems like it's going to intensify intra-party squabbles.
  8. Is that the same thing as that Tweeter thing Rick Perry was talking about? Always wanted to tell people they could follow me on tweeter. But, it sounds like a real bummer. So I guess I won't.
  9. And lets not forget about pardoning people that go around violating other people's 14th and 4th Amendment rights, since Trump is now the big defender of the constitution.
  10. That is all you needed to say.
  11. Unreasonable? I think it's unreasonable for you to balk at somebody taking objection to a statement you made that by it's own text left little in the way of qualification. You're the one that basically wrote: "Either you believe in classical liberal values or you don't." At no point in what you wrote could one glean any suggestion that there was a middle ground. Your phrasing of that statement was one of an "either or" proposition. That you wrote something that didn't reflect your actual views on the matter and was interpreted by others according to its ordinary plain text is your fault, not the fault of the readers. When I called you on that proposition, you chose to speak of "straw man" rather than issuing a clarification. I have no problem with you issuing said clarification, as I myself have written stuff that didn't always quite come off as to what I meant, particularly in an online debate. The reason I pressed you on this question is because I believe a number of good things came out of classical liberalism. However, I don't think it got everything right, or in the alternative, assertions made in the name of classical liberalism aren't correct or are very questionable. So when you implied that accepting the tenets of classical liberalism was an "either or" propostion, I took umbrage at that statement, as I believe it presents a very false choice. If you believe that it was a false choice as well, you could have so clarified.
  12. I know, you might want to sit down for awhile. LOL.
  13. There has been plenty of research on the impact of immigration on native American wages, starting with David Card's paper about the Mariel boat lift. The majority of academic conclusion about immigrants' impact on native wages is that is very small to nonexistent, at least over the historic ranges of immigration that the US has allowed. So Sessions is saying something that is not generally accepted in the academic research on this isssue. But, aside, from the wage issue, the removal of these people is both cruel and horrific.
  14. Here is what you wrote: Now, this might be surprising, but I'm not a mind reader. Accordingly, I can only comment about what you wrote, not what you thought you meant to say. The ordinary plain meaning of what you said is "subscribe to classic liberal values, or you don't". And I called you on that assertion. Now, if you want to give a clarification, fine, then do so. I'm not straw manning you. I pointing out the flaw in statement you made. Nice try on you for trying to deflect my point based on a statement you made.
  15. So since you believe in "classic liberal values" do you think getting on the gold standard is a good idea? Do you think the market will "correct itself" in all cases? I don't this is as simple as you'd like to frame it. You can have some respect for classical liberalism, but recognize it didn't get everything quite right.