Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Disagree wholeheartedly. To an extent you are right -- protectionism is a policy option. And for all our yammering on about free markets and competition, the US is not particularly open to competition. I just saw the following the other day in a World Bank paper: trade accounted for about 30% of US GDP as of 2015, less than the average of 70% in other advanced economies. The US accounts for 24% of global GDP and 11% of global trade. This economy is already pretty protected.

Which leads me back to those people who think China's eating our lunch. Or who think that if we could just call black people anything we want we'd have a more competitive economy, but who never think of what rent-seeking and anti-competitive behaviour our corporate champions engage in that actually does impact the economy. Those people are trying to shield themselves from the marketplace of ideas just like the campus snowflakes. They are entirely engaged in the marketplace of ideas, actually. And very disengaged from the facts around them.

[hack]

Another very interesting stat I picked up in that World Bank paper, which can be found here, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/...1464810169.pdf:

About 43 percent of total U.S. trade occurs within multinationals (intra-firm trade), especially in the case of U.S. trade with advanced economies. Since the global financial crisis, intra-firm trade has continued to grow robustly (especially with
EMDEs) whereas arm’s-length trade has slowed sharply.

In other words, legal tax planning. Trade within firms is how that happens. I'm not necessarily a pro-free trader. Rich countries got rich with asymmetrical approaches to trade. But the notion of global competitiveness and comparative advantages and all that is nonsense. Firms wanted to go global to tap other markets but also because a big geographically sprawling balance sheet helps them take advantage of legal loopholes to cut their tax bills. We should all be keeping this in mind when the tax reform/tax cut debate fires up later this year. Companies are going to go on and on about how government needs to reform the archaic tax code so they can remain competitive on a global scale. The tax system is indeed a mess and there are reasons to reform it, but the game here is to attach a giant tax cut that would not do anything to make the economy more competitive. It's already one of the most friendly operating environments in the world for a corporation. If we believe in the notion that government should run like a business, then the CEO of USA Inc. should know that corporate interests won't find a better deal elsewhere, invite them to go take a look and see, and design a balanced tax system that meets the needs of all, instead of an unbalanced one that meets the needs of some and screws most others.

This is where the real debate is to be had. It's not about showing basic decency to minorities or building walls or whatever. If we want to hold government accountable then we need to stop pretending that CEOs could do a better job. We need to have politicians that don't buy stupid arguments for why the most pro-fat cat system in the developed world needs to be more pro-fat cat.

[iam416]

Or who think that if we could just call black people anything we want we'd have a more competitive economy

I haven't met or otherwise encountered a single person who actually thinks this.

I have encountered and met protectionists and folks in favor reduced immigration. I disagree with their protectionist position. Strongly. I've expressed my opposition. And I haven't been brought up on charges or otherwise shit on for expressing my opinion. Nor did they run from contrary opinion. Or cower. It was a normal policy argument -- you know, free exchange of ideas. Further, I'm not aware of anyone who was punished by the State for pushing back against these positions.

But, we clearly and manifestly disagree as much as humanly possible, at least with respect to your equivalency. We probably merely disagree as to what I consider the obvious and predictable results of PC. And we probably somewhat agree on protectionist policies and immigration.

[entropy]

Regarding Syria... estimated that 250,000 innocents have died since the conflict began 3 yrs ago. It's interesting to me how people suddenly care when a new president is in office. Actually, interesting is not the right word... =) One could argue certain recent events have elevated the need, but I could also argue a life is a life in the end...

I'm for the UN trying to make peace. I'm for the security council stepping up and equally sharing a role as world police. I am not for the US footing the bill alone.

Now with all that said, I think we've learned that certain regions have produced less favorable outcomes through intervention than others. In some regions, the good guys become the bad guys when in power... over and over and over again. I was actually a fan of BO's ME policy as a result (not Iran, but in general). I certainly don't want to see 250,000 innocents die, but I'm not sure the US could have prevent most of those deaths without turning the country into a police state and sending troops there for the next 50 yrs. And even then I wouldn't be optimistic of their future.

I think it's time to go after accounts, do as much as possible by the civilized world to stop the sales/purchase of weapons, punish those who break those rules and continue with strategic strikes to weaken certain aggressors and weapons stashes.

And at some point, I'm hoping the western world begins to pay as much attention to Africa as the ME... because many of the tribal attributes of the ME are spreading to that area.

[iam416]

There's absolutely no appetite for investing US lives in removing bad actors. None. We learned that under GWB. It's a job for the laughable UN or, more likely, it's up to the US and others to exert pressure to restrain bad actors as much as reasonably possible.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I haven't met or otherwise encountered a single person who actually thinks this.

I have encountered and met protectionists and folks in favor reduced immigration. I disagree with their protectionist position. Strongly. I've expressed my opposition. And I haven't been brought up on charges or otherwise shit on for expressing my opinion. Nor did they run from contrary opinion. Or cower. It was a normal policy argument -- you know, free exchange of ideas. Further, I'm not aware of anyone who was punished by the State for pushing back against these positions.

But, we clearly and manifestly disagree as much as humanly possible, at least with respect to your equivalency. We probably merely disagree as to what I consider the obvious and predictable results of PC. And we probably somewhat agree on protectionist policies and immigration.

May the spirit of John Cooper shit in your Cheerios...

[iam416]

True story. Coop lives in my area and has grandchildren that are in our school district. I took my son to watch a HS basketball game, there, sitting a row behind us, was ol' Coop. He looked in fine form. Most folks let him be with a few offering a quick, "How's it going coach." I managed to exercise all powers of self-control to refrain my screaming at him, "HOW THE FUCK DID YOU LOSE TO FUCKING MICHIGAN FUCKING STATE!!!!?!?!?"

Fortunately, I've mellowed a bit in my old age.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Devin Nunes 'temporarily' stepping away from the Russian probe because 'leftist activists' have filed ethics complaints against him.

[Da Geezer]

Talent:

Nah, we all like "safe spaces" from, you know, violence. I like to think of it as the law.

Your folks on campus, however, need to be safe from ideas. I like to think of that as being a weak-minded pussy.

I hope you read the article I posted about the origins of campus rage. Most notable to me were the two areas that the fellow refused to talk about: "the rape culture" and "Islam". I have no idea what "the rape culture" is. Any thoughts?

[hack]

We have two people here on this forum who believe that. Valid points though about the left trying to use authority to shut down legal-though-hateful speech. Certainly I don't know of any racists on the right trying to sue people for using PC terminology.

[hack]

I think it's time to go after accounts, do as much as possible by the civilized world to stop the sales/purchase of weapons

The right is fighting tooth-and-nail against the tools put in place to do that, including elements of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

[iam416]

Hey, some more PC gold...this time Pepsi and Kendall Jenner get lambasted: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/p...-anger-n742811

To be fair, this is, at least, not State-sponsored suppression of discourse. It's protest and market-based. It's the type of shit, however, that is worthy of mockery.

[Wild Hoss]

I think it's time to go after accounts, do as much as possible by the civilized world to stop the sales/purchase of weapons

The right is fighting tooth-and-nail against the tools put in place to do that, including elements of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

The latter is a fantasy anyway....one of the Russians' most profitable generators of foreign cash is weapons sales. They aren't giving that up, especially not in the current petroleum environment. Allies like France are historically prolific arms producers as well. It might be noted that we sell the occasional M4 too.

Financial tools are already in use of course, so I assume ent is suggesting we broaden the scope. Definitely.

[iam416]

I have no idea what "the rape culture" is

I haven't read the piece so I'm not aware of the context. Professor Kipnis takes on what I think of the "rape culture" in her new book (apparently -- I haven't read one word):

In Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, published this week, Kipnis takes aim at all those who perpetuate the myth that female students (a majority on most campuses) lack sexual agency and are victims of unrelenting micro-aggressions from course material, class discussions, and offhand comments made off campus. She also has sharp words for the sexual bureaucrats who police (with almost prurient interest) sexual relations on campus.

The general idea, I think, is that there is, increasingly, a desire to find "rape" in interactions that are plainly not so. Kipnis puts it well in that it's an infantilizes women -- they have no agency over their sexual decisions. I mean, the PC culture infantalizes all those who it protects, but in this case it happens to be women.

If you read the history of the Amherst case you'll get a sense of "rape culture" as it's pejoratively used. A plainly consensual act. 2 years later, after speaking with counselors and agendized folks, a bullshit complaint is filed and the student is expelled.

[iam416]

We have two people here on this forum who believe that.

If you're referring to "that" as:

Or who think that if we could just call black people anything we want we'd have a more competitive economy

...then I still haven't encountered anyone has taken that position. Perhaps Hannibal and Geezer -- I presuming it's those two b/c they're the only two conservatives on this forum -- have asserted that if we can black folks whatever we want we'll have a competitive economy. I haven't read it. I'm fairly certain that they probably think hiring underqualified individuals hurts economic competitiveness. I happen to agree with that one.