US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Could be.  Can't imagine McCain would appreciate being used like that though, and it may positively give Lindsey Graham the vapors.

Lucky McCain -- he's got the blue ribbon premium health care and insurance that senators have.  So he can afford to have regular checkups that discover blood clots and go in immediately for preventive surgery.  Maybe he'll think about how few people can actually do this in the US as he recovers.  Kinda ironic this personal health care event, considering the bill that they want his vote on,

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

And the insurance industry has already told McConnell about it.  The link below (from a Daily Kos article) will take you to the letter from to major insurers to McConnell and Schumer.  

 

Bah! The author of the letter ran the ACA for Obama. Obviously she can't be trusted. Forget the fact that there are two signatures on the letter, the evil influence of the Dems has unforgivably tainted that letter.

[denstorebog]

The great thing about these slow-news weekends is that you have time to notice other, smaller things.

My observation of the day: The Drudge Report has changed its tune quite a lot from the campaign days, when the website was famous for not linking to any negative stories about Trump. Matt Drudge really hated Hillary with a passion. But lately, and especially during the last weeks, DR has, incredibly, offered some views outside the media bubble for the right-wing nuts. The Junior scandal has made red headlines without any of Drudge's usual attempts to skew the story, and now he's actively linking to the miserable Washington Post approval poll as well as taking regular shots at Congress' failures to do, well, anything.

Gotta wonder if he's lukewarm about Trump's six months in action, or if he's just figured that there's more traffic in appeasing both sides between elections.

[Fez]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Could be.  Can't imagine McCain would appreciate being used like that though, and it may positively give Lindsey Graham the vapors.

Well, McCain's no fan of the bill either and he's personally disliked McConnell for like 20 years now, so it probably doesnt make much difference to him.

Mccain was going to vote to debate, but it was not clear at all of he'd vote yes in the end. Especially if the proposed amendments he had from Gov. Ducey weren't included in the final bill.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Mccain was going to vote to debate, but it was not clear at all of he'd vote yes in the end. Especially if the proposed amendments he had from Gov. Ducey weren't included in the final bill.

Right I just don't see him as the type to use his own health issue in some type of Machiavellian maneuver (or at least, I suppose, consent to such).  Could be wrong.

[Sivin]

17 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

 

As for McCain, wish him the best. 

Why?

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/15/2017 at 0:22 PM, ding-fries-are-done said:

Now this is classic comedy gold.

There are quite a few hilarious lines too.  

Democrats motto: there is always a victim.  

Grap them by the poppy.  

 

 

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.

[LongRider]

From 'The Dog Ate My Homework' edition of really lame excuses;

Quote

According to a source familiar with the situation, speaking to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, Kushner claims that he did not scan to the bottom of the email thread forwarded by his brother-in-law, therefore completely missing the part about “Russia and its government.”

Bad doggie!

O-o, there seems to be more than one!

Quote

Kushner’s claim that he didn’t know precisely what was in the “confidential” “Russia” and “Clinton” email sent to him sounds familiar, only because it’s the same explanation, or excuse, that Manafort has been shopping.

On Tuesday, a source close to Manafort told Politico that the ousted Trump campaign chief “hadn’t read all the way to the bottom of the email exchanges on his phone and that he didn’t even know who he was meeting.”

Did these two losers come up with these excuses by their only littles seflies? Or is this what their high priced mouthpieces think are cunning exonerations?  srsly, the dumbfuck-apocalypse is upon us. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/16/2017 at 5:47 PM, Nasty LongRider said:

From 'The Dog Ate My Homework' edition of really lame excuses;

Bad doggie!

O-o, there seems to be more than one!

Did these two losers come up with these excuses by their only littles seflies? Or is this what their high priced mouthpieces think are cunning exonerations?  srsly, the dumbfuck-apocalypse is upon us. 

They are not very good liars are they?

[LongRider]

51 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

They are not very good liars are they?

What they lack in quality they more than make up in volume. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

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!”

 

My understanding is that it was war that got the division of the sexes started, and of course war was a luxury that agriculture could afford. People living a subsistence lifestyle can't aggregate in large enough numbers to create big armies to go invade other people, and they don't have time to go to war because they are busy trying to find enough food and material to live day to day. No doubt there would be conflict when two groups are competing for the same subsistence resource, but because of limited numbers on either side I'd imagine it's all able hands on deck when it comes to a fight between subsistence societies.

So I guess agriculture indirectly lead to a division of labour between the sexes because of the advent of war, but I don't think there is anything inherent in agriculture itself that necessitated that division.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/16/2017 at 7:08 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

snip

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.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/16/2017 at 6:53 PM, Nasty LongRider said:

What they lack in quality they more than make up in volume. 

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.

[LongRider]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

A poor youngin' drinking cheap beer, well, who hasn't been there.  But if you had received an email with this heading, wouldn't you have read the whole thing?  

Quote

From: Donald Trump Jr.

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:03 PM

To: Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort

Subject: FW: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

Meeting got moved to 4 tomorrow at my offices.

Best,

Don

Pitiful pitiful liars.  

edt; such privileged shits. Prison will look good on them.

[The Fallen]

I'll see your 'dog ate my homework' excuse and raise you 'the Secret Service didn't stop the meeting so it was fine'.

 

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, The Fallen said:

I'll see your 'dog ate my homework' excuse and raise you 'the Secret Service didn't stop the meeting so it was fine'.

 

Bam!

Oh, wait, the Secret Service has an ace up it's sleeve;

Quote

In an emailed response to questions about Sekulow's comments, Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said the younger Trump was not under Secret Service protection at the time of the meeting, which included Trump's son and two senior campaign officials.

"Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," the statement said.

Damn, you can just see the poker face on Brayman as he wrote that, can't you?    

[Fez]

Sounds like McCain's surgery was potentially quite a bit more serious than the initial reports indicated https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/health/john-mccain-blood-clot-recovery.html, and there's a good chance he'll be recovering for more than just a week. 

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Sounds like McCain's surgery was potentially quite a bit more serious than the initial reports indicated https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/health/john-mccain-blood-clot-recovery.html, and there's a good chance he'll be recovering for more than just a week. 

That article is interesting, there might be more to his condition than has been told to the press.  Plus he's 80.  hmmmm

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

One has to wonder how much further the Trump Administration can move the goal posts. It seems to me that they're nearing the water's edge. 

[aceluby]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

One has to wonder how much further the Trump Administration can move the goal posts. It seems to me that they're nearing the water's edge. 

His base just doesn't care and will repeat whatever he says.  He'll pardon these treasonous assholes as soon as he can and his base will justify it via some crazy left wing media conspiracy.