Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 95 of 111 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105 ... LastLast
Results 7,051 to 7,125 of 8309
  1. #7051
    If someone spreads a foul lie that says you were sexually inappropriate with children, then you emphatically deny it with every ounce of breath you have. You swear from the mountaintops that the allegations are definitively false.

    You don't say "I only did it with the mother's permission"

    What the fuck wuf? In what universe are the allegations against Roy Moore lies??

    Hannity asked him directly.."IS THIS A LIE"

    and Roy Moore himself said "nope"

    And you think the guy was set up???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????
    Some people talk like utter fools, and that includes Roy Moore. The way he speaks is hardly evidence of the allegations against him. What was evidence of allegations against him? Only the yearbook, that was forged, that the forger admitted was forged.
  2. #7052
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.
    What lie? Roy Moore's own words say he did it.

    He refused to concede the election when everyone in the universe knew he lost. The man is no stranger to denial.

    Yet he doesn't deny this....
  3. #7053
    On the bright side, it may be that my great concern about the lie overstates what happened. This is because the lie may have been used as a "fake because".* Moore had real problems. Serious, big problems. It was probably a mistake for Bannon to back him, and it was probably NOT a mistake for the pious xtian wing and the establishment elite wing of the party to try to get him to lose, since Moore losing would wash out the stain on the brand that Moore would bring. But the way it happened. I hate that way.


    *Having decided to not support Moore, the reason given was the accusation even though the decision was made without the accusation in the first place.
  4. #7054
    What lie? Roy Moore's own words say he did it.

    He refused to concede the election when everyone in the universe knew he lost. The man is no stranger to denial.

    Yet he doesn't deny this....
    He said emphatically MANY times he did not do it. Interpreting the line you are is very hard to do. It can mean all sorts of things from he's bad at making jokes to he's dumb when he is given enough time to talk to he has done similar things to he did this particular thing.
  5. #7055
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Some people talk like utter fools, and that includes Roy Moore.
    Dude....

    I'm usually the first person to give someone a pass when they put their foot in their mouth. Public figures have to talk alot, and not all of it is going to be perfect. It's certainly not fair to take things out of context and make worst-case assumptions about their meaning.

    I gave Trump a pass on the "blood coming out of whereever" thing.

    We're not talking about an awkward pause. We're not talking about fumbling with words. We're not talking about some kind of out-of-context misinterpretation of his statements.

    There is absolutely no other way to interpret what Roy Moore said other than an explicit confirmation of the allegations against him

    I need you to understand this wuf. I'm not willing to agree to disagree here.

    When confronted with the allegations against him, Roy Moore said "yes, I did it, but I wasn't sneaky about it, so it should be ok"

    At that point, it's time for you to stop calling the allegations against him, a lie.

    Are we sympatico on this?
  6. #7056
    You'd have to show me the specific event you're referencing.

    I call the allegations a lie because I try to not intuit what people mean when they say stuff and instead go with the hard evidence. The evidence presented was demonstrated to be a forgery and was admitted to being forged by the forger. That means that the most concrete thing we have to go on by a significant margin was a lie.
  7. #7057
    On the bright side for people who want Democrats to win, the Republican party is a mess and this event shows it in action. Three different wings of the party are fighting for hegemony over the future of the party, and the moment Trump leaves, his coalition will disperse much more than people expect. A new coalition could be created, possibly even a stronger coalition, like by Pence if he runs in 2024. But that remains to be seen.

    Pence might be the only living, breathing soul who can create a new coalition that would bed down the intra-party warring.
  8. #7058
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You'd have to show me the specific event you're referencing.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ex-allegations

    I know it's Vox and you're instinct is to be skeptical. But cmon wuf. There were like nine times in there where all the guy had to say was "NO". And instead he gave some other answer that could only be interpreted as "yeah, sometimes I did mess around with young girls".

    Sounds like Roy thinks that his intentions with the girls were honorable, and that there was adult supervision, so it's all ok.

    IT"S NOT FUCKING OK!

    Grown people, and underage people don't mix romantically or sexually.

    Got it? If any part of that is ambiguous....you can't be a senator.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-14-2017 at 01:45 PM.
  9. #7059
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The evidence presented was demonstrated to be a forgery and was admitted to being forged by the forger. That means that the most concrete thing we have to go on by a significant margin was a lie.
    Um, no. The accuser admitted adding the date and location herself after what Moore wrote. The handwriting is clearly diff. than Moore's. That's not forgery, that's record keeping.

    Also, the whole case against Moore goes much further than a signed yearbook, which itself proves nothing. The most damning thing is what Banana said, where he basically gives himself up.
  10. #7060
    What are you saying? This article mashes up totally different events. The cases of sexual assault were denied by him, and the cases not of sexual assault were not.
  11. #7061
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
    Um, no. The accuser admitted adding the date and location herself after what Moore wrote. The handwriting is clearly diff. than Moore's. That's not forgery, that's record keeping.
    Yes, thank you. She admitted to altering part of what was altered.

    Also, the whole case against Moore goes much further than a signed yearbook, which itself proves nothing. The most damning thing is what Banana said, where he basically gives himself up.
    I'm confused. What did he give himself up to? He denied sexual assault and didn't deny non-sexual assault
  12. #7062
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You'd have to let me know which parts are false accusations that you think I agree with.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Not sure. The Senate took a hatchet to what started out as a good bill.
    So what were the good parts that were cut out? Or did the senate add the part where everyone gets tax cuts but for those earning less than $75k/year it's just temporary? What stops you from criticizing the bill?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The Trump effect on this one was probably negative, actually. Trump campaigned against Moore in the primaries and Moore still won. And then in the general election, "pious" Christians completely abandoned Moore because Bannon backed Moore. Of the three wings warring over control of the Republican Party, the pious Christians wanted the Bannon wing to lose at all costs. So they decided to fall in line with somebody who goes against everything they believe in.

    The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.
    You've been using the word "lie" for half a dozen times and you've been asked what you mean by it, but you haven't answered. What's the "lie"?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  13. #7063
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yes, thank you. She admitted to altering part of what was altered.
    Well, unless she's playing 3D chess then she fucked up. If you forge something, you shouldn't admit to forging a small, irrelvant part of it as that gives your opponents an excuse to say things like you just did.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm confused. What did he give himself up to? He denied sexual assault and didn't deny non-sexual assault
    He went out of his way NOT to deny dating underage girls as a 30+ man. What do you need to convince you he's a fucking creep?
  14. #7064
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
    He went out of his way NOT to deny dating underage girls as a 30+ man. What do you need to convince you he's a fucking creep?
    Thanks for making this point, because I'm not talking about this. He probably dated the way stated. I don't care.
  15. #7065
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    LIES!!!
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  16. #7066
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    So what were the good parts that were cut out? Or did the senate add the part where everyone gets tax cuts but for those earning less than $75k/year it's just temporary? What stops you from criticizing the bill?
    I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.

    You've been using the word "lie" for half a dozen times and you've been asked what you mean by it, but you haven't answered. What's the "lie"?
    Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.
  17. #7067
    On the topic of taxes, it's hard to say exactly what is good when it comes to the play between cuts and spending. For example, a tax cut that doesn't include a deficit cut may just result in future higher taxes to pay for the deficit. There are some economists who claim that tax rates barely matter for real growth because something something equilibirum something something. I don't know the argument well enough but it comes from some very smart economists. What markets tell us is the most important though, since the market response more accurately reflects information than the other options we know of. They tell us that they like tax cuts. They don't tell us why that is though. And they could also be wrong because they don't have perfect information.

    What we want is reform first. That means simplification and deduction elimination. Because this would make the tax code more efficient, which would make business more efficient and would raise real output growth. The reason we are not getting reform is simply the fact of rent-seeking. Attempts to reform get small groups of people who benefit from the current status to come out in droves. Perhaps the way to get reform to work is to do very slow phase-in/phase-out where nobody loses. So if the mortgage deduction goes away, it only goes away slow enough and it is coupled with a rate cut of sorts that the people who benefit from the mortgage deduction today actually benefit more at each interval of the phase as the deduction goes away and the cuts are implemented.

    But we are not getting that because the Democrats believe taxes should be higher and more complicated and because Republicans are weak and pathetic.
  18. #7068
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.
    To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy. The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case. The only justification for this I've ever heard is the trickle-down effect of the net growth. You have personally claimed that neither you nor any economist claims trickle-down is a thing, so how exactly is this good? That's some reverse robin hood shit right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.
    What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  19. #7069
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy.
    The distribution scheme we have currently is significantly from wealthy (and working class) to poor such that the poor pay negative taxes and working earners pay taxes. If a tax cut is "redistribution" it is really just a reduction of in current redistribution.

    The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case.


    A neat thing about this is that in a capitalist market economy, it can't be the case that the wealthy do well and the non-wealthy do not. The wealthy would do only as well as the working and vice versa. An example for this is that for a business owner to make money he needs workers to produce, and in order for workers to produce they need business owners to pay them. A relatively free market economy raises the benefit for all because of this.

    What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?
    I was calling the accusation of sexual assault highly suspicious before Moore even commented on it. This is because I follow politics closely and we see false accusations emerge with this timing often. Other facts for how they emerged make them even more suspicious. Then when the main accusation was shown as tampered, confirmation that the accusation was false hit all time high.
  20. #7070
    There's a lot of possibilities. One is that it's all a smear campaign. Another is that it's legit and those women came forward at that time because of all the other women coming forward recently. A third is that someone realised the D's might actually have a chance of winning this one and it was a good time to bring these things up. What seems almost certain is that RM has a thing for underage girls and it makes the public all the more open to the idea that these charges are real.

    The whole 'fake yearbook' defense is lame, you should just give it up. First, the signature there is either a perfect forgery or it's him. Second, it isn't even a big part of the case against him; there's nothing wrong with signing someone's yearbook. Third, the fact that she wrote something below it and admits that is meaningless.

    What do you think of the timing of these other women coming out against Trump signifies?
  21. #7071
    There are two main ways a change in the tax code can raise real growth, which necessarily means better economy for the middle and poor:

    (1) Reduction of information asymmetries and inefficiencies. This is like I mentioned previously, where something like a mortgage tax deduction distorts the market for mortgages. These can go so far as to cause recessions.

    (2) Increase in incentive to produce. One way of aiding this is to tax earnings less. A probably better way to achieve this is to redistribute less, which means tax less and give to others in form of subsidies and welfare less.

    The idea that tax and redistribution improves the lot of the poor requires the benefits given to the poor makes them more efficient. The evidence doesn't much support that and the theory tends towards saying it makes them less efficient. The idea that tax and redistribution helps the poor also assumes that some capital is, well, the best word might be "idle". And that is not true. Capital does nothing when you burn it. But if you are Bill Gates and you add capital to a savings account (among the dumbest things you can do), the capital is still ultimately functioning as a source of funds for production and wages.
  22. #7072
    In the past, Trump has had many opportunistic accusations against him that vanish the moment they becoming irrelevant to his opposition.

    Now, anything part of the MeToo movement is highly suspect. Which is very sad because some of the stuff is true. Everybody wants to signal their virtue, and it harms the real victims.
  23. #7073
    ^^^ I meant to say "the only time capital does nothing is when you burn it".
  24. #7074
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Everybody wants to signal their virtue, and it harms the real victims.
    How does accusing someone of sexual misconduct signal your virtue?

    The only way I can see the movement being abused is if some scorned or delusional woman uses it as a revenge tactic.
  25. #7075
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
    How does accusing someone of sexual misconduct signal your virtue?

    The only way I can see the movement being abused is if some scorned or delusional woman uses it as a revenge tactic.
    I certainly don't want to be too aggressive with my opinion on this. It's tough to say where it's right and where it's not.

    The wave of revealing sexual misconduct is only good in as much as it improves womens' ability to tell the truth. But I see some of what is happening not being that. Women already have very strong ability to reveal assault and be believed/appreciated for it. #MeToo is having women come out when they otherwise wouldn't, which shows that in some of the cases the events were not as big of deals as maybe they should be for them to want to come out in the first place. And the cascading result, we can predict, will be like what you said, women having increased incentive to use it for ill gains.

    Two people I admire have to comments on this that I agree with.

    Jordan Peterson: all these new claims demonstrate why sex has been traditionally enshrined in marriage.

    Scott Adams: an unintended consequence of these new claims may be men hiring fewer women.

    And on reddit there was recently a top rated post along the lines of "how men greet women now" and it was a gif of a woman trying to hug the Mr. Bean actor and him pushing her away at the face and shaking her hand instead.

    I see this heading in a direction we may not want it heading.
  26. #7076
    Well, I don't know for sure either.

    But, I can sort of understand the female perspective on it. First, men are often pretty aggressive sexually. Part of that is the fault of our culture which has an archetype of a man relentlessly chasing a woman until she finally gives in. It doesn't work that way in real life. A woman who likes you doesn't run away. IRL, it's more like man chases woman until either he gives up or she gets a restraining order. But a lot of men act like that strategy is supposed to work and get pissed when it doesn't.

    Second, a woman coming forward to report abuse is generally not getting praise heaped on her. If anything it's the opposite. If it goes to trial,the standard defense is 'she's lying' or 'she was asking for it wearing those high heels and having a drink alone in a bar'. Which, if she's actually a victim, is pretty degrading treatment. So I think a fair number of women who have been abused are quiet about it because it's just not worth the ordeal to speak up. And when they see others speaking up, they get the courage to speak up too. It's easier now because of that, rather than being a voice in the wilderness so to speak.

    Third, men can protect themselves from unwanted claims in certain ways. Not initiating physical contact is a pretty simple rule to follow with strangers, and on dates not being pushy with physical contact is another one. Fact is, if some woman wants to make up a story about you it's going to happen even if you're a perfect gentleman. But I think it's generally rare for that to happen because it has such serious consequences for the man. I mean you could also accuse someone of robbing a bank if you didn't like them and wanted to make them suffer, but not many people are that wicked.

    So overall, I'm inclined to believe most of these women.
  27. #7077
    I certainly believe most as of now, at least the one organic ones, not the "we have a month to an election" ones.
  28. #7078
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    #metoolol

    Especially a month before a fucking election. Every single fucking time.
  29. #7079
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    So-called "net neutrality" got shot the fuck down today. Glad to hear that.
  30. #7080
  31. #7081
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A neat thing about this is that in a capitalist market economy, it can't be the case that the wealthy do well and the non-wealthy do not. The wealthy would do only as well as the working and vice versa. An example for this is that for a business owner to make money he needs workers to produce, and in order for workers to produce they need business owners to pay them. A relatively free market economy raises the benefit for all because of this.
    Would you describe that the poor in America at the moment are doing good and/or that the wealthy are not?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was calling the accusation of sexual assault highly suspicious before Moore even commented on it. This is because I follow politics closely and we see false accusations emerge with this timing often. Other facts for how they emerged make them even more suspicious. Then when the main accusation was shown as tampered, confirmation that the accusation was false hit all time high.
    So who lied? There were several accusations by several defendants. You're absolutely convinced that they're all just paid trolls, because that's how the dems roll? That's your occam's razor?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ^^^ I meant to say "the only time capital does nothing is when you burn it".
    Wouldn't that deflate the value of everyone else's monies?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  32. #7082
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Roy Moore is refusing to concede. I don't blame him. The alleged turnout for Democrats was absurdly high. Smells like voter fraud out the ass.

    Still haven't seen any evidence that he did something wrong.
  33. #7083
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    Would you describe that the poor in America at the moment are doing good and/or that the wealthy are not?
    The lot of both are improving.

    So who lied? There were several accusations by several defendants. You're absolutely convinced that they're all just paid trolls, because that's how the dems roll? That's your occam's razor?
    I've been referring to the allegations made by the person who provided evidence that she altered.

    Wouldn't that deflate the value of everyone else's monies?
    I don't know, and there are differing opinions among economists with this sort of thing. It's because it could start as one thing then move to another thing or something like that. And some economists would say in the real world you can't extrapolate from micro to macro like this (because monetary policy something something). What they agree on, however, is that the portion of real wealth in the economy presented by the burned money would be lost without gaining anything else to make up for it. Say's Law is good for this. It says that demand derives from supply, meaning that what somebody can buy emerges from what they produce, i.e., if you didn't build those widgets you wouldn't have gotten a wage in which you can buy some gidgets.
  34. #7084
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The lot of both are improving.
    People on food stamps have iPhones. That's all I have to say about that.
  35. #7085
    Sometimes it's useful to think of money and goods/services as the same thing. This is because money's value derives entirely from the believed value of goods and services. So, when you look at accumulation of money, you want to look at the other end of it, which is the goods/services from which the money derives value. When you exchange your money for somebody else's good or service, you're not losing by net and he's not losing either. You both gain by net. You have greater than your money's value in the good/service and he has greater than his good/service value in money.

    When we have a situation like Walmart and the Waltons, where one family/organization accumulates a ton of value "consumed" as money, it is because of an approximately equivalent increase in value consumed as goods/services of the Walmart shoppers.
  36. #7086
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow
    People on food stamps have iPhones. That's all I have to say about that.
    Approximating the true real growth in the economy is a big problem for economists. They get nowhere close and few talk about it.

    Market capitalism is improving the lot of the poor at magnitudes beyond anything in history, yet some people don't know that or don't want to accept it when presented with it. The net neutrality thing is a good example. The amount of productive growth relevant to poor peoples' lives the internet has undergone WITHOUT government interference is some unquantifiably enormous number better than the amount of productive growth the telecom industry that "net neutrality" was created for ever did.
  37. #7087
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Holy shit, you dumbasses.

    In any case, keep whirling around trying to figure out how religion's latest avatar couldn't win against anyone else.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  38. #7088
    Hey rilla if you paid attention you'd see that the religious were anti moore
  39. #7089
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    They sure were.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  40. #7090
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The lot of both are improving.
    Maybe as part of global growth and technology advances. Doesn't change a thing about this being a direct transfer from the poor to the wealthy, who themselves seem to fairly adamant about not increasing investment due to this, just giving more profits to shareholders.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I've been referring to the allegations made by the person who provided evidence that she altered.
    Are you being vague on purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't know, and there are differing opinions among economists with this sort of thing. It's because it could start as one thing then move to another thing or something like that. And some economists would say in the real world you can't extrapolate from micro to macro like this (because monetary policy something something). What they agree on, however, is that the portion of real wealth in the economy presented by the burned money would be lost without gaining anything else to make up for it. Say's Law is good for this. It says that demand derives from supply, meaning that what somebody can buy emerges from what they produce, i.e., if you didn't build those widgets you wouldn't have gotten a wage in which you can buy some gidgets.
    Sure, but what makes that dude build those widgets if not demand?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  41. #7091
    Maybe as part of global growth and technology advances. Doesn't change a thing about this being a direct transfer from the poor to the wealthy, who themselves seem to fairly adamant about not increasing investment due to this, just giving more profits to shareholders.
    The idea that it is possible to redistribute wealth between levels of wealth in a capitalist macroeconomy isn't a sound idea. A way of understanding this is that if the government goes to Apple and pulls a million out of the shareholders' pockets and gives it to Apple employees, the employees will still only have the same income as before because Apple will lower current and future wages by a million. Or if the government makes a law that Apple can't lower the future wages somehow, then Apple will increase the product price and then millions of consumers experience an equivalent wealth decrease. And if the government makes that illegal, Apple will operate at higher risk, get lower investment, produce less product over time, and its employees will see lower wages and more job volatility enough to make up for it. The same type of rationale works if trying to redistribute from poor to rich. Redistribution doesn't redistribute.

    Sure, but what makes that dude build those widgets if not demand?
    That demand derives from the supply produced by those demanding.

    There are a lot of ways to think of demand; one way is that it's like a budget constraint. Your demand isn't your hypothetical desire for things given an infinite budget; instead it's the quantities of goods/services you would buy at given prices dependent on your budget funds and preferences. From where do budget funds derive? According to Say's Law, from production. If you do not produce, you have nothing to trade with, which means the quantity you demand of a good/service at any given price is 0.
  42. #7092
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The idea that it is possible to redistribute wealth between levels of wealth in a capitalist macroeconomy isn't a sound idea. A way of understanding this is that if the government goes to Apple and pulls a million out of the shareholders' pockets and gives it to Apple employees, the employees will still only have the same income as before because Apple will lower current and future wages by a million. Or if the government makes a law that Apple can't lower the future wages somehow, then Apple will increase the product price and then millions of consumers experience an equivalent wealth decrease. And if the government makes that illegal, Apple will operate at higher risk, get lower investment, produce less product over time, and its employees will see lower wages and more job volatility enough to make up for it. The same type of rationale works if trying to redistribute from poor to rich. Redistribution doesn't redistribute.
    Won't the added purchasing power (production) for the working class likewise create more demand and raise prices, therefore counteracting all that?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That demand derives from the supply produced by those demanding.

    There are a lot of ways to think of demand; one way is that it's like a budget constraint. Your demand isn't your hypothetical desire for things given an infinite budget; instead it's the quantities of goods/services you would buy at given prices dependent on your budget funds and preferences. From where do budget funds derive? According to Say's Law, from production. If you do not produce, you have nothing to trade with, which means the quantity you demand of a good/service at any given price is 0.
    Looks like Say's law is "Supply creates its own demand", and has been rejected since the 40s by Keynesians.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ts-own-supply/
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  43. #7093
    Won't the added purchasing power (production) for the working class likewise create more demand and raise prices, therefore counteracting all that?
    It wouldn't be added purchasing power due to rational expectations and the permanent income hypothesis. Essentially, the workers would expect lower current and future wages, which would mean their expected wealth wouldn't increase from the one-time transfer and their spending behavior wouldn't change.

    Looks like Say's law is "Supply creates its own demand", and has been rejected since the 40s by Keynesians.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ts-own-supply/
    Krugman is not refuting Say's law, but refuting one way that economists have used Say's law to interpret other things. Classical economists didn't have a working conceptualization of aggregate demand (at least not one that works when central banks exist). Many classical economists ended up being wrong about some things because of this. The great Keynesian innovation is the conceptualization of aggregate demand.* Also Krugman's characterization of Say's law is the same kind of Keynesian-specific mischaracterization of it that began with Keynes. To lots of economists, Say's law implied something about aggregate demand even though it was not about aggregate demand. It was a simple observation about where wealth comes from. Both classical and Keynesian economists went beyond this observation and blamed it on the law.


    *It should be noted that even though this is the great Keynes innovation, it is still wrong about what aggregate demand actually is. One of the great innovations of the school of monetarism fixed that. Contemporary Keynesians are sorta halfway to accepting it now. Essentially, classical economists didn't think aggregate demand could fall for reasons including implications they derived from Say's law (they were wrong), then Keynes came along and pointed out that aggregate demand can fall (he was right), and then monetarists came along and explained WHY aggregate demand falls.
  44. #7094
    **A simple observation about where wealth comes from and what that means for markets for goods and services.

    Which is quite different than when talking aggregation of markets of goods and services.


    Also both classical and Keynesian economists were wrong about aggregate demand because they didn't adjust for money illusion, that is that people adjust expenditures based on the nominal outlook. Keynesians currently accept it but are struggling to come to terms with what that means.
  45. #7095
    btw if this stuff is confusing, that shows that you're paying attention. it's very common for economists to talk past each other. for example, keynesians believe aggregate demand can be thought of as either real or nominal, and that it is made up of consumption + investment + government spending + net exports, while monetarists think that aggregate demand is made up of money supply * money velocity and is purely nominal. the latter view makes sense to me. but anyways, economists very rarely seem to even try to reconcile these views and instead just assume the one they like better then work from there. the movement towards reconciliation does happen, it's just super slow.
  46. #7096
    You know how Roy Moore said some stupid ass shit?

    Well one of the things he said that didn't go over well (or that his wife said actually), was the whole "I'm not racist, I have an *insert ethnicity* friend".

    And everybody thinks that's retarded and suggests backwardsness and racism or whatever.

    But they're wrong

    You gotta know who you're dealing with.

    To a southern conservative, the LAST thing you would do is associate with somebody whom you don't morally approve of.

    So when a southern conservative says he's not prejudiced because he has such n such friend, it's his silly way of truly demonstrating the easiest way to tell that he's not prejudiced in that way. But go to NYC and say that and they'll call you a bucktooth bigot while they cry about blumpf and his oppression of peaceful and beloved kim jong un.
  47. #7097
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Yeah it's like people have no concept of context whatsoever, especially when it comes to the simple fact that southern culture (which they want to hate on left, right and center) is very different.
  48. #7098
    Al Franken did nothing wrong.

    I don't like the impact the dissolution of tradition is having. Womens' sexuality will be protected, and since western society is dissolving the traditional modes of protection of womens' sexuality, shit like this happens.
  49. #7099
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Not sure if I'm missing context from what you're saying but

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Al Franken did nothing wrong.
    He sexually assaulted a woman with photographic evidence.
  50. #7100
    What he did shows lack of judgment.
  51. #7101
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What he did shows lack of judgment.
    I don't think it did. She had some nice ass titties.
  52. #7102
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    He sexually assaulted a woman with photographic evidence.
    You're trolling right??

    A prank, with a slightly suggestive connotation, is NOT sexual assault.

    If Al Franken was not a senator, we wouldn't have heard a word about this. This "epidemic" of sexual assault charges seems to helped along by an awful lot of attention-seeking, opportunistic, politically motivated bitches.
  53. #7103
    My boss once groped my bicep.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    A gay coworker used to rub his body against me.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    I once stuff a slice of pizza down my passed-out drunk friend's pants.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    My friend once ran his hand up my thigh to freak me out.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT
  54. #7104
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My boss once groped my bicep.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    A gay coworker used to rub his body against me.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    I once stuff a slice of pizza down my passed-out drunk friend's pants.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT

    My friend once ran his hand up my thigh to freak me out.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT
    Sadly, in 2018, this is not hyperbole.
  55. #7105
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sadly, in 2018, this is not hyperbole.
    On the bright side, I think we'll exit this hallucination in 20 years.

    Or maybe we'll exit it the moment Trump is no longer president. Because, if we're being honest, that's probably where this shit emerges from.
  56. #7106
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Or maybe we'll exit it the moment Trump is no longer president. Because, if we're being honest, that's probably where this shit emerges from.
    I've said it before, I'll say it again.

    If Hillary were President, Bill O'Reilly would still have a job.
  57. #7107
    on Franken

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...Bup?li=BBnb7Kz

    In the end, the Democratic Party sacrificed one of their most high profile senators without gaining one square inch of moral high ground.

    There should have been an ethics investigation. Unfortunately for Franken, there wasn’t time for any sort of fact-finding or due process; there was only time for politically expedient, angry mob justice.
  58. #7108
    Sup with your boy Bannon, wuf?
  59. #7109
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're trolling right??

    A prank, with a slightly suggestive connotation, is NOT sexual assault.

    If Al Franken was not a senator, we wouldn't have heard a word about this. This "epidemic" of sexual assault charges seems to helped along by an awful lot of attention-seeking, opportunistic, politically motivated bitches.
    I agree with the overall sentiment of wuf's post, but Franken groped an unconscious woman's breasts. That's clear sexual assault by the letter of the law.
  60. #7110
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I agree with the overall sentiment of wuf's post, but Franken groped an unconscious woman's breasts. That's clear sexual assault by the letter of the law.
    I don't have an opinion on what the law should be, but I am struck by the fact that it's more disrespectful than assault.

    I also get very cautious of things when there are several signs of hallucinations on them. In this case, those signs include things like how everybody would laugh if he did that to a sleeping Tucker Carlson's nutsack and that the event happened a long time ago (photo been around a long time?) and only MeToo suddenly MeToo now MeToo people MeToo care.
  61. #7111
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Sup with your boy Bannon, wuf?
    TIL Bannon is by boy.

    I never much liked the guy. I laughed when a friend told me he looks like the guy who gets bit by a zombie and doesn't tell the group. I thought she meant post-turn.

    As for what's going on here, who knows. I hope to not jump on the bandwagon that interprets everything as doom for Blumpf nor the bandwagon that thinks everything is intergalactic backgammon by Dr. God Emperor of the United States.
  62. #7112
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Something is odd about this Bannon situation. I kind of wonder if it's all just a setup for the Fakies.
  63. #7113
    Well I'm happy that my source on Bannon (they're friends) says that the animosity between Trump and Bannon is real. This situation is a little too complex to make good sense as 3d chess AND it explains why Trump has acted in an unusual way (since it's personal this time).
  64. #7114
    Though it was getting clear the beef is real, Trump giving Sloppy Steve Bannon his new forever-name seals the deal.
  65. #7115
    I'm glad to see Scott Adams was wrong on Bannon. After Roy Moore lost, he was like this isn't going to negatively affect Bannon at all and I'm thinking WTF this will ruin Bannon. And it has ruined Bannon. His fault for being stupid about some of the ways he went after Trump and for not vetting a candidate (Moore) who can fit about fifteen feet in his mouth at once.
  66. #7116
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm glad to see Scott Adams was wrong on Bannon. After Roy Moore lost, he was like this isn't going to negatively affect Bannon at all and I'm thinking WTF this will ruin Bannon. And it has ruined Bannon. His fault for being stupid about some of the ways he went after Trump and for not vetting a candidate (Moore) who can fit about fifteen feet in his mouth at once.
    Funny how you had to parenthetically clarify that you were taking about Moore and not another candidate supported by Bannon who's known to routinely put his foot in his mouth.
  67. #7117
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Funny how you had to parenthetically clarify that you were taking about Moore and not another candidate supported by Bannon who's known to routinely put his foot in his mouth.
    Heh. That wasn't my intention, but the interpretation works
  68. #7118
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
  69. #7119
    I wonder if the Democrats will field anybody who can win in 2020. What I'm getting at is how in 2012, all of the GOP potentials who were planning on running for president skipped to 2016. This includes Trump. Romney was only ever the best candidate of a bunch of schlubs.

    Given how easy it would be for any candidate in 2020 to anticipate having the fight of xir's life, getting forever nicknamed like Crooked did, I bet a lot of those who think they can win will just skip to 2024. However, if there is enough belief among the ctrl-left that Trump is weak, then some stronger candidates may opt to run 2020.

    If Bernie runs will he win the primary?
  70. #7120
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I wonder if the Democrats will field anybody who can win in 2020. What I'm getting at is how in 2012, all of the GOP potentials who were planning on running for president skipped to 2016. This includes Trump. Romney was only ever the best candidate of a bunch of schlubs.

    Given how easy it would be for any candidate in 2020 to anticipate having the fight of xir's life, getting forever nicknamed like Crooked did, I bet a lot of those who think they can win will just skip to 2024. However, if there is enough belief among the ctrl-left that Trump is weak, then some stronger candidates may opt to run 2020.

    If Bernie runs will he win the primary?
    I anticipate Bernie running against an otherwise weak field (not that there are any strong Democratic candidates vs. God Emperor), winning the primary and getting smoked in the general election.

    Bernie is basically Jeb Bush when it comes to charisma and the ability to debate and not be a total cuck. That is to say that he doesn't have a fucking chance in hell.

    And I think the Democratic establishment will let him do it so that he can crash and burn twice in a row, which would make him seem unelectable in 2024. I anticipate Pocahontas is going to be the one they all get behind next, but I don't think she can beat Bernie in primaries without the help of the DNC.

    If she does run and beat Bernie in 2020, Trump will have to pardon himself for murder once the debates are done. Hillary couldn't hang with him during the debates, and Warren is no Hillary Clinton.
  71. #7121
    Seeing some buzz today about Oprah running.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that's the democrat's best play.

    They can't attack Trump on his record. Instead, they are painting him as a sexist, racist, madman. Oprah is a woman, black, and universally popular. She perfectly counters all of Trump's negatives. Simultaneously, she can match him in terms of business success. She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?

    I have tremendous respect for Oprah. Her story of self-made success is exactly what my conservative, anti-entitlement heart likes to hear.

    I will say that of anyone the Democrats might run, Oprah has earned an open mind from me. I think Trump is doing fine, but if he ran against Oprah, I think I would give both candidates a clean slate. That's just one man's anecdote, but I gotta believe alot of independents might share my opinion here.
  72. #7122
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Seeing some buzz today about Oprah running.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that's the democrat's best play.

    They can't attack Trump on his record. Instead, they are painting him as a sexist, racist, madman. Oprah is a woman, black, and universally popular. She perfectly counters all of Trump's negatives. Simultaneously, she can match him in terms of business success. She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?

    I have tremendous respect for Oprah. Her story of self-made success is exactly what my conservative, anti-entitlement heart likes to hear.

    I will say that of anyone the Democrats might run, Oprah has earned an open mind from me. I think Trump is doing fine, but if he ran against Oprah, I think I would give both candidates a clean slate. That's just one man's anecdote, but I gotta believe alot of independents might share my opinion here.
    I agree with the sentiment. I can tell Scott Adams is afraid of Oprah given his tweet on it today. I think in the past he says if she runs she wins. I'm not sure I agree, but I think she would probably be the best candidate the Dems can put up.

    I don't think she has any plans to run nor does she want to. She's probably smart enough to know that Trump would ruin her life.
  73. #7123
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I anticipate Bernie running against an otherwise weak field (not that there are any strong Democratic candidates vs. God Emperor), winning the primary and getting smoked in the general election.

    Bernie is basically Jeb Bush when it comes to charisma and the ability to debate and not be a total cuck. That is to say that he doesn't have a fucking chance in hell.

    And I think the Democratic establishment will let him do it so that he can crash and burn twice in a row, which would make him seem unelectable in 2024. I anticipate Pocahontas is going to be the one they all get behind next, but I don't think she can beat Bernie in primaries without the help of the DNC.

    If she does run and beat Bernie in 2020, Trump will have to pardon himself for murder once the debates are done. Hillary couldn't hang with him during the debates, and Warren is no Hillary Clinton.
    I lol'd at pardon for murder.

    I generally agree with the Bernie stuff, but I'm still more sanguine on his chances in a general election. He plays to a big part of the crowd that Trump plays to, and I don't think enough voters are afraid of socialism like they were back when the 70s and 80s revealed it to be so destructive and everybody wised up for the subsequent decades.

    About Warren, I always thought she was the Dems preferred "Bernie". But she didn't run. Against Trump, if she would be able to not get flustered (a big IF), she would be a strong candidate IMO. I mean, I used to ADORE her. Lots of Democrats love her.
  74. #7124
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?
    Ikr. Barely any words start with the letter O.
  75. #7125
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I lol'd at pardon for murder.

    I generally agree with the Bernie stuff, but I'm still more sanguine on his chances in a general election. He plays to a big part of the crowd that Trump plays to, and I don't think enough voters are afraid of socialism like they were back when the 70s and 80s revealed it to be so destructive and everybody wised up for the subsequent decades.

    About Warren, I always thought she was the Dems preferred "Bernie". But she didn't run. Against Trump, if she would be able to not get flustered (a big IF), she would be a strong candidate IMO. I mean, I used to ADORE her. Lots of Democrats love her.
    Do you remember when BLM protested the Bernie rally, and he just stepped back and let them take the podium and call him a racist and all of his supporters racist and all of that goofy shit?

    The man literally marched with MLK, and he still didn't have the balls to stand up to those goofballs. The man would have no chance whatsoever standing up to Trump. He would get bulldozed with no regard for human life.

    And personally, I'd pay to see Warren vs. Trump because she's a great match-up for him stylistically. She's basically an inferior Clinton.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •