US Politics - 51 threads to the election!

[Atreides]

Was it an error? Or were they worried that people would get confused by "United States Code" and just put Constitution since people know what that is and respect it utterly. As opposed to some law code which they've never heard of. Though I am willing to assume Fox made a mistake, the same way I assume Obama did with his 57 states, and Bachmann with her John Waynes.

[Shryke]

I'm willing to assume Fox made a mistake the same way they do every time a Republican disgraces himself and he's "accidentally" labbeled a Democrat.

[Atreides]

And now Gingrich laments that the Bush Administration didn't let through any terrorist attacks to remind us that we're still in danger, and therefore there isn't popular will for more above-the-Constitution wiretapping and such. Someone should tell Newt that if current measures are keeping America safe, perhaps they are adequate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lLLxbbOf0&feature=player_embedded

Edit: how do you link to youtube?

ETA: you post it as a link, not an image - m.

[sologdin]

original citation likely was 28 U.S.C. Section 144,

unlikely, unless it refers to a previous version of the statute:

§ 144. Bias or prejudice of judge

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

the actual language regarding "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of a particular case in controversy" comes from current 28 USC 455, involving the mandatory grounds for recusal of a justice, inter alia:

Where he has served in governmental employment and in such

capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness

concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the

merits of the particular case in controversy;

no idea what fox was trying to do to kagan, other than imply that she should now be impeached for failure to recuse herself for being too liberal-moslem-commie-terrorororororoist.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

unlikely, unless it refers to a previous version of the statute:

It is sufficiently close that it is the only logical explanation for why "28" and "144" appeared. Not saying they got it right -- just saying why "Constitution" appeared with those numbers.

[SpicyTurkey]

According to what? See, we are back to the first question again.

Shit, look at Lehman Brothers. They didn't get bailed out.

These people made risky moves because they made money.

You seem to discount the role of GSEs which are guaranteed a bailout. Freedie The housing related GSEs have received more than 13 billion in indirect federal subsidies.

If people make risky moves, then don't bailout them out when that risk turns deadly. It only distorts the markets, and leads to more risks down in the future.

"inflationary mechanisms"??? WTF? You do know that inflation occurs without the existence of a central bank, right?

It does, but in a market where there are competing currencies, you can switch to another currency and minimize your loss.

What does the collapse of the eurozone have to do with a lack of multiple currencies? The issues are mostly related to a lack of integrated fiscal policy and the ECB/Germany's unwillingness to backstop the Eurozone's debt or accept higher inflation.

Switching currencies is inefficient and you can't say "if it was more efficient, the free market would do it" since that's you basically assuming your own argument as an axiom.

A central currency involves a central bank, and for a central to become a central it needs the government to force its will. As such the banks (that make up the Euro) are the main creditors of the governments in Europe. The politicians want the Euro alive. For that to happen they need to bailout failing undependable governments with the public's money.

It's inefficient because you say its inefficient. It seems that you are the one using your arguments as axioms. I base my arguments based on preexisting axioms, and the unpredictability of human action.

This makes no sense and again highlights that you don't know what's going on here. Real economic growth comes from money because money buys real things. I build a factory with money, I make things, the economy grows. And I do that because the bank lent me money.

If we hold your premise to be true, then why not give everyone a 20 million dollars, and see if that will stimulate the economy.

First of all, an Austrian-economics think tank? Pfft

Secondly, you just avoided argument here. Are businesses trying to end EPA regulation, yes or no? (Yes, because those regulations costs them money) Was the financial sector instrumental in deregulating financial markets? (Yes it was so they could make more money) Regulations impact business negatively all the time (that's often the point after all, to make them pay for externalities they wouldn't otherwise) and they fight vigorously against them. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Whats wrong with Austrian Economics? Some of the greatest economists were Austrian Economists. Your pompous attitude only shows how little you know.

The EPA's role can be regulated through free markets via property rights. If by any chance I find that my neighbor is polluting, and that pollution is spilling through my property then I have the right to sue him.

How? You keep saying it does, but you are utterly unable to show how this works.

Your definition says: "an economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices, wages, etc., rather than government policy"

Controlling the money supply doesn't stop this from happening. (things like minimum wage laws do for labour, but that's not the Fed)

A central currency forces people to use a specific currency. Part of the free markets is the ability to choose among a competition, and a central currency forbids it. The people in charge of the central currency have the ability to control the money supply, and can control it at will (which is a direct contradiction of demand). As a result they can control the interest rate on that money, and that can hinder the economy tremendously. What we have now is monopolistic central bank licensed by the government.

So, I ask you a question. You ignore it (again) and simply claim the banks are scared of the free market. You then claim I don't understand how bubbles are formed, and quote a piece that doesn't even refer to that simply saying companies in industries that lobby well can improve their performance. Well duh. What you seemed to have ignored is that on bubbles they were worse AND more frequent before strong regulation came in and on the above lobbying that it still affects all players in the market equally.

I'm giving up. Shryke and I keep answering questions, and then posing them to you. And you respond with platitudes. We put up examples, talk about the history, you keep putting up platitudes. Unless you want to provide some real arguments and examples beyond "I don't like it, I believe this, so its true", I'm going to leave you alone in your little world.

All the calamities before governmental interventions lasted less than a year, but when government intervenes (The Great Depression) it lasted for almost a decade. Most of the past calamities (prior to 1929) were instigated by the government.

When depressions do hit in a free market the correction is usually swift.

[DanteGabriel]

The Free Market does everything you want it to do, and nothing you don't want it to do. Got it.

Still, how does it stand up to barghasts?

[Atreides]

SpicyTurkey, if you find out that the chemical plant down the road is polluting, I hope you have a lot of money to get a good lawyer or dozen. But what if the pollution came from upriver, in another state a hundred miles away? That's why its a federal agency, because pollution and other environmental problems don't neatly stick to state boundaries or other neat lines.

[lokisnow]

you don't understand, Atreides, The Free Market would CHANGE the flow of rivers and grow mountains out of mustard seeds with its magical unicorn horn.

[sologdin]

-1 prof hayek.

+1 salma hayak.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

lockesnow,

No, the free market would not do those things but you could sue that company in Federal Court under diversity jurisdiction assuming the damages were greater than $75,000 or the case involved Federal Civil law. If I had my drouthers there would be no limited liability to protect the investors in that chemical company so the civil suit in Federal Court might be better able to get the attention of the company in the first place.