@jjstraka34 Yeah, I reckon things have changed with globalization in connection with capitalism, technology advances, and the general way of doin business. No going back I suppose is probably right. Excuse the weird double but different post
@jjstraka34 Yeah, I reckon things have changed quite a bit. I think globalization has both good and bad parts to it, but that's just the way things are now. I just am not sure ppl have quite caught up to all the fast changes over the last few decades, in all the various ways.
So somehow Melania Trump somehow had qualified for the "Einstein Visa".
The so-called Einstein visa is aimed at people born abroad who have earned “sustained acclaim,” including renowned researchers or business leaders, award-winning performing artists and Olympic athletes. Applicants are instructed to submit evidence of a history of accomplishment or of a “one-time” achievement, such as a “Pulitzer, Oscar [or] Olympic Medal,” according to the requirements for the visa.
And her parents are in the US through chain migration because she sponsored them. But Trump is against immigration - legal and illegal and chain migration. Cadet bone spurs also claimed he would run into the school (unarmed even!) when the shooter in florida started firing.
"Deadly Innocent Fraud #5: The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes away jobs and output. Facts: Imports are real benefits and exports are real costs. Trade deficits directly improve our standard of living. Jobs are lost because taxes are too high for a given level of government spending, not because of imports." https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
We would be fools to support these tariffs or undermine our trade deficit that we benefit immensely from. We receive massive amounts of labor and finished goods in exchange for accounts at the fed. We continue to listen to idiots and ignore the ones who get it right.
That seems like an extremely one-sided argument. Mosler says that goods and services can directly increase the standard of living and therefore the more imports you get the better off you are - that argument depends on the associated flows of money having no costs. This is rationalized on the basis that a foreign company would own a deposit of US dollars sitting in an American bank and that there are no costs associated with that.
It's true that other countries have been willing to build up their dollar holdings over many years and that this has helped support the standard of living in the US. However, I don't believe for a moment that there are no limits to that process. The dollar used to be the de facto world currency, but that's already far less true than it was, so I suspect that we're nearing the end of the period when the US can continue to run a high trade deficit without suffering any effects from that. Such effects could include: - weakening of the value of the dollar (increasing the price domestic consumers pay for those imported goods) - much higher potential for a bank run if foreign investors decide to transfer their holdings - increased foreign ownership of US firms, resulting in a lower proportion of profits benefiting the domestic economy
Mosler's argument depends on flows of goods and services having real effects, but financial flows having no real effects. While the essay he's written linked above is short and therefore his argument may have been more developed elsewhere this seems a curious conclusion on the face of it. Remember that an increasing proportion of trade worldwide relates to things which do not have any direct impact on standards of living (like marketing, financial loans & guarantees, insurance and intellectual property). That doesn't mean that those things have no real impacts though - just think about the worldwide recession caused by the financial crash in 2008.
The argument is also advanced that there is no foreign capital involved in the trade. If a US citizen wants to buy chinese goods he could do so by taking out a loan with a US bank. That results in the citizen having the goods, the bank holding a loan and a savings account and the chinese controlling the account. Mosler concludes that as the finance originated as domestic credit that means there is no foreign capital. This is a misunderstanding. It's true that savings would not normally be defined as capital, but as I noted above the desire for foreigners to hold dollar savings is far from unlimited. I suspect that the majority of new holdings will not remain as savings in perpetuity, but be held for investment purposes, i.e. foreign capital has been created as a result of the trade deficit. Those investment holdings could be used to buy things in America (such as companies or property) or transferred overseas - either of which uses would have an impact on the US economy. The essay refers to China a lot. That country has spent huge amounts of capital overseas in recent years - and that capital has mainly originated from trade.
Mosler makes a big thing about being outside the mainstream of economic thinking. It's certainly true that people willing to 'think outside the box' are much more likely to be responsible for developments of knowledge. It's also true though that the theories of such people are much more likely to be wrong ...
We've actually discussed this before, and generally came to the conclusion that a funeral home is an essential public service (since families cannot dispose of bodies legally on their own). Thus, since any funeral home is licensed by whatever state they are in, if they choose to be in that business, they should be obligated to serve the ENTIRE public. I don't see how this is any different than a medical facility having to serve everyone. Of course, if the Trump Administration gets their way, doctors won't have to treat gay or transgender patients if they don't "feel" like it, which, eventually, would almost certainly cause someone to die.
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business. I mean, what if this hypothetical lesbian couple lived in a town similar to the one I grew up in, where there was only one funeral home?? They should be forced to drive 20, 50, 100 miles to find someone who will embalm or cremate their loved one?? It's absurd.
Hey everyone, there is nothing to worry about. We should want trade-wars because they are easy to win. Well who knew?? I guess we have nothing to worry about then. Donald Trump says it's gonna be as simple as 1, 2, 3.
This is no different than putting your crazy uncle who no one wants over for Thanksgiving in charge of the country.
Hey everyone, there is nothing to worry about. We should want trade-wars because they are easy to win. Well who knew?? I guess we have nothing to worry about then. Donald Trump says it's gonna be as simple as 1, 2, 3.
This is no different than putting your crazy uncle who no one wants over for Thanksgiving in charge of the country.
They are as easy to win as a Federal election.
Step 1. Announce it Step 2. Get the Russians involved Step 3. ????? Step 4. Profit.
[quote]"That seems like an extremely one-sided argument. Mosler says that goods and services can directly increase the standard of living and therefore the more imports you get the better off you are - that argument depends on the associated flows of money having no costs. This is rationalized on the basis that a foreign company would own a deposit of US dollars sitting in an American bank and that there are no costs associated with that."[/quote]
Can you expand on what costs you are referring to? The basis is sound for a monetarily sovereign free-floating FIAT currency, no foreign capital is involved, it is denominated in US dollars (i.e. "reserve accounts") at the Federal Reserve. From the St' Louis Fed:
"As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Moreover, there will always be a market for U.S. government debt at home because the U.S. government has the only means of creating risk-free dollar-denominated assets (by virtue of never facing insolvency and paying interest rates over the inflation rate, e.g., TIPS—Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities)."
[quote]"It's true that other countries have been willing to build up their dollar holdings over many years and that this has helped support the standard of living in the US. However, I don't believe for a moment that there are no limits to that process. The dollar used to be the de facto world currency, but that's already far less true than it was, so I suspect that we're nearing the end of the period when the US can continue to run a high trade deficit without suffering any effects from that. Such effects could include: - weakening of the value of the dollar (increasing the price domestic consumers pay for those imported goods) - much higher potential for a bank run if foreign investors decide to transfer their holdings - increased foreign ownership of US firms, resulting in a lower proportion of profits benefiting the domestic economy"[/quote]
Being the world reserve currency means absolutely nothing. If the world decided to switch to something else, it would not matter in the slightest. The petrodollar is a similar fear-mongering tactic that has no basis in reality. You make all of these claims with no supporting evidence, logic, or theory- global reserve currency has nothing to do with the value of the dollar, etc.
[quote]"Mosler's argument depends on flows of goods and services having real effects, but financial flows having no real effects. While the essay he's written linked above is short and therefore his argument may have been more developed elsewhere this seems a curious conclusion on the face of it. Remember that an increasing proportion of trade worldwide relates to things which do not have any direct impact on standards of living (like marketing, financial loans & guarantees, insurance and intellectual property). That doesn't mean that those things have no real impacts though - just think about the worldwide recession caused by the financial crash in 2008."[/quote]
Yes, the worldwide recession A.K.A. the 'Minsky moment'. Guess who Minsky was and why he was the one who predicted it? You consistently refer to "flows"... I assume you buy into QTME and velocity of money garbage from Milton Freidman? I am interested in what exact effects you are referring to here. The essay above is primarily directed at those who have little to no understanding of macroeconomics. I can send you to more advanced discussions of these topics if you prefer. MMT correctly points to private debt expansion in correlation to decreased deficit spending (especially during the Clinton years- budget surplus) as a leading cause. (Also see: sectoral balances)
[quote]"The argument is also advanced that there is no foreign capital involved in the trade. If a US citizen wants to buy chinese goods he could do so by taking out a loan with a US bank. That results in the citizen having the goods, the bank holding a loan and a savings account and the chinese controlling the account. Mosler concludes that as the finance originated as domestic credit that means there is no foreign capital. This is a misunderstanding. It's true that savings would not normally be defined as capital, but as I noted above the desire for foreigners to hold dollar savings is far from unlimited. I suspect that the majority of new holdings will not remain as savings in perpetuity, but be held for investment purposes, i.e. foreign capital has been created as a result of the trade deficit. Those investment holdings could be used to buy things in America (such as companies or property) or transferred overseas - either of which uses would have an impact on the US economy. The essay refers to China a lot. That country has spent huge amounts of capital overseas in recent years - and that capital has mainly originated from trade."[/quote]
There is no foreign capital involved. Enlighten me then on what foreign capital exists here? So what if foreign investors use their dollars to boost our economy by spending into it? How on earth is that a bad thing? If they transfer their dollars overseas and decide not to use risk-free assets at the Fed, so what? I fail to see how this is a dire situation.
[quote]"Mosler makes a big thing about being outside the mainstream of economic thinking. It's certainly true that people willing to 'think outside the box' are much more likely to be responsible for developments of knowledge. It's also true though that the theories of such people are much more likely to be wrong ..." [/quote]
Yet they keep getting it right. 'Minsky moment' on the global recession. Kelton's predictions on Greece. Mosler made his wealth predicting that Italy could not default on the Lira...
Hey everyone, there is nothing to worry about. We should want trade-wars because they are easy to win. Well who knew?? I guess we have nothing to worry about then. Donald Trump says it's gonna be as simple as 1, 2, 3.
This is no different than putting your crazy uncle who no one wants over for Thanksgiving in charge of the country.
So he's saying if countries stop trading with us, we win. Because we'll stop getting whatever they were trading to us, we win. Crazy Uncle indeed. It should be obvious this clown is not some dealmaking genius and he's going to bankrupt the US like he's done his businesses time and again only the US government won't be there to bail out the US government like it does with his businesses.
No one was wondering that. You are only worried about you and hey, you are fine because you are strong right.
There's something you are missing. There are other people in the world. Your parents, grandparents, disabled people, women, children. They aren't as strong as you. What about them? They should get up out of their wheelchair and what exactly?
So what right, you are strong now. In 10 years you might not be. When you are young you think things will last forever, they don't. You could have a major illness or a surgery gone bad or get hit by a car. Then guess what. Some other guy will be like we only need to worry about the strong, get lost. There's always someone stronger.
Churchill's quote about young liberal and old conservatives never made logical sense to me. I was a bit more conservative when I was young, dumb, and invincible. Mortality and wisdom steered me well over to the left.
No one was wondering that. You are only worried about you and hey, you are fine because you are strong right.
There's something you are missing. There are other people in the world. Your parents, grandparents, disabled people, women, children. They aren't as strong as you. What about them? They should get up out of their wheelchair and what exactly?
So what right, you are strong now. In 10 years you might not be. When you are young you think things will last forever, they don't. You could have a major illness or a surgery gone bad or get hit by a car. Then guess what. Some other guy will be like we only need to worry about the strong, get lost. There's always someone stronger.
My point is to show how tall, strong and intelligent man are more inclined to be right wing. While "beta males" tends to be SJWs. A low testosterone man will have a hard time trying to get stronger and will be more likelly to be left wing. The video of i training is because people tend to believe that gamers are weak.
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business.
Why don't we ask for permission to exist while we're at it
Licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous, to the point where states are requiring two year degrees to be a hair braider. This is pure protectionism, and it keeps people who wish to work in a state of poverty by creating further barriers to entry.
Plus, as we see by jjstraka34's argument, many people view this as an excuse for the state curtailing further liberties, as if people should be grateful for being granted the right to earn an honest living. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is horrifying. You should not have to trade in your religious or moral beliefs just to put food on the table.
The real issue here is that Trump is making these decisions on a whim.
While that is certainly the case in the majority of instances, I don't think that's true here. Backward economic protectionism is the one area Trump has been consistent on, since the late 80s. There's a video of him bemoaning trade deficits on Oprah in 1988.
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business.
Why don't we ask for permission to exist while we're at it
Licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous, to the point where states are requiring two year degrees to be a hair braider. This is pure protectionism, and it keeps people who wish to work in a state of poverty by creating further barriers to entry.
Plus, as we see by jjstraka34's argument, many people view this as an excuse for the state curtailing further liberties, as if people should be grateful for being granted the right to earn an honest living. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is horrifying. You should not have to trade in your religious or moral beliefs just to put food on the table.
So Pharmacists should not have to fill prescriptions for birth control, a doctor should not have to treat someone whose "lifestyle" they disagree with, and funeral homes should be allowed to turn away bodies based on whether the deceased was a homosexual?? Forget the gay wedding cakes issue, these 3 examples are a totally different ballgame. Are we suggesting that people in these positions (pharmacist, doctor, mortician) have NO responsibility to the general public in carrying out the duties of their job?? Especially since finding some way to dispose of a body is a public health issue. Maybe soon a trans person will really hit the lottery on this issue, dying because a doctor refuses to treat them, and then refusing to be embalmed and buried by the local funeral parlor. You know, like Jesus would do. Where is the freedom for that person??
My point is to show how tall, strong and intelligent man are more inclined to be right wing. While "beta males" tends to be SJWs. A low testosterone man will have a hard time trying to get stronger and will be more likelly to be left wing. The video of i training is because people tend to believe that gamers are weak.
Your source only says upper body strength is correlated with right-wing political views. It says nothing about height, testosterone, or intelligence.
I'm not too surprised by the finding. Conservatives place more value on physical strength and are more likely to work out. Also, conservatives are less likely to have a college degree, which means they're more likely to have a blue-collar job that requires more physical strength.
You imply that liberal men are genetically inferior to conservatives, saying that people favor liberal policies if they're weak and ineffectual. This comes off more like self-congratulatory bragging about the superiority of one's body and mind and views than a scientific judgment.
Education is more correlated with liberal views. Does this mean we should congratulate liberals on their superior enlightenment?
@jjstraka34 Pharmacies, hospitals, and funeral homes are special cases. They provide VITAL services for a community that MUST be available for everyone. If joe bigot (example only, not calling out Joes) wants to open a dollar store and refuse to serve whatever group he wishes, let him. His competition can get all the customers he refuses to serve and make it harder for "joe" to stay in business.
The other logical conclusion of "the government can tell you how you run your business" is that all businesses become effectively owned by the government; it will then be only through their gracious magnanimity that you are *allowed* to run the business for them (even though you were the one who got the business started). This is another aspect of the Nanny State--government is your all-powerful parent, they always know what it best for you, and you had better do what you are told when you are told to do it or you will be sent to your room to think about your actions.
This isn't kindergarten--we don't *have* to like each other. We don't *have* to approve of other people's choices, or lifestyles, or opinions. If a person from group A does not wish to associate with people from group B then no one can *force* them to do so. You cannot legislate that people treat each other fairly, at least on an individual basis, because you cannot enforce such a law. There are people who don't like *me* because of my demographic--this doesn't bother me at all, because I couldn't care less what other people think of me personally.
As I have noted many times before, if a business owner wishes to commit economic suicide by turning away paying customers that is their choice to make. Once word of their poor choices begins to spread the market will deal with it as that business owner goes out of business. Yes, people can cherry-pick exceptions or create hypothetical scenarios such as "what if that is the only florist in the entire county?" but those scenarios are still only hypothetical and thus not real. We deal in reality--if the only florist in the county is a racist jerk then order flowers online. If you don't have Internet access...well, then I can't help you--try their toll-free phone number. If you claim that you don't have a phone...well, in that case I simply don't believe you.
*************
Two security researchers (as in "private security", not "publicly traded shares") think they know what caused the "sonic attack" in the Havana embassy--two ultrasonic listening devices were too close to each other and this caused an interference pattern, leading to the physical symptoms and neurological problems.
And what of businesses that run a monopoly? What if the lone broadband company in an area decides that they will no longer allow service to a group of people they have ideological differences with. Electric company. And so on... Kindergarten indeed.
My point is to show how tall, strong and intelligent man are more inclined to be right wing. While "beta males" tends to be SJWs. A low testosterone man will have a hard time trying to get stronger and will be more likelly to be left wing. The video of i training is because people tend to believe that gamers are weak.
Your source only says upper body strength is correlated with right-wing political views. It says nothing about height, testosterone, or intelligence.
I'm not too surprised by the finding. Conservatives place more value on physical strength and are more likely to work out. Also, conservatives are less likely to have a college degree, which means they're more likely to have a blue-collar job that requires more physical strength.
You imply that liberal men are genetically inferior to conservatives, saying that people favor liberal policies if they're weak and ineffectual. This comes off more like self-congratulatory bragging about the superiority of one's body and mind and views than a scientific judgment.
Education is more correlated with liberal views. Does this mean we should congratulate liberals on their superior enlightenment?
That doesn't happen. Broadband companies don't care about people's ideology, only that they pay their bill on time each month. We know they don't care because broadband companies do not make prospective or current customers fill out questionnaires to see what ideological positions they hold in case there is someone whose access they need to cut. As I said, that is one of those hypothetical "what if?" scenarios people typically use in an attempt to argue the other side; unfortunately, that scenario simply does not reflect known reality, which is why it fails.
Known reality is that cake bakers who need money more than a monopoly that flows in profits didn't seem to care about just getting paid. Can you seriously not imagine a scenario where gays or Muslims might be denied these services?
@screamingpalm Again, I said services necessary for society must be made available to all people. Utilities, schools, hospitals, funeral homes, etc. These services are not solely for personal profit and must cater to all members of society. A small business owner in a non-critical service or a service with lots of competition have the freedom to discriminate as they please. I cannot imagine a scenario in this day and age where there is only one way and one place to get a cake from.
@screamingpalm Again, I said services necessary for society must be made available to all people. Utilities, schools, hospitals, funeral homes, etc. These services are not solely for personal profit and must cater to all members of society. A small business owner in a non-critical service or a service with lots of competition have the freedom to discriminate as they please. I cannot imagine a scenario in this day and age where there is only one way and one place to get a cake from.
I'm sure MOST of us would agree with that, but the highest levels of the Executive Branch don't:
The examples cited here include a nurse who didn't want to give POST-OP care to a woman who got an abortion. Does that mean that nurse will refuse to ever treat that patient again for any reason?? Another example is a pediatrician who wouldn't treat the CHILD of lesbian parents. And we are made to believe that it is these particular health care workers who are having their rights violated.
Known reality is that cake bakers who need money more than a monopoly that flows in profits didn't seem to care about just getting paid. Can you seriously not imagine a scenario where gays or Muslims might be denied these services?
Not from large corporations, no, but we aren't talking about large corporations--the business owners in these sorts of cases are small and local. Individual business owners have the right of refusal. No one has to like that situation but that is simply how it is.
Does a Muslim restaurateur have to serve me a non-halal meal because I showed up and ordered it? If he doesn't ,then he is refusing service to me based on my religious beliefs (since I am not Muslim and can eat whatever I want). According to the logic being used, he *must* serve me such a meal even if that would cause his kitchen to become out of compliance with *his* religious beliefs.
Known reality is that cake bakers who need money more than a monopoly that flows in profits didn't seem to care about just getting paid. Can you seriously not imagine a scenario where gays or Muslims might be denied these services?
Not from large corporations, no, but we aren't talking about large corporations--the business owners in these sorts of cases are small and local. Individual business owners have the right of refusal. No one has to like that situation but that is simply how it is.
Does a Muslim restaurateur have to serve me a non-halal meal because I showed up and ordered it? If he doesn't ,then he is refusing service to me based on my religious beliefs (since I am not Muslim and can eat whatever I want). According to the logic being used, he *must* serve me such a meal even if that would cause his kitchen to become out of compliance with *his* religious beliefs.
A halal meal would be dictated by the ingredients a particular restaurant is choosing to use. I don't know anyone anywhere who is suggesting we should dictate what selections restaurants have on their menu, much less what type of ingredients they use to cook them. There is nothing more subjective than what food or restaurant you decide to eat at. I'd argue that in many cases across the country (outside of metro areas) there is no subjective choice to be made about hospitals, funeral homes, or pharmacies. The OBJECTIVE reality may be that you only have one option anywhere near you.
So yeah, I guess we have to live with the bigoted bakers of this country. Screw them, I hope they all end up bankrupt living in a gutter, but whatever. But dispensing healthcare, prescription drugs, and funeral services are an entirely different matter.
Comments
@jjstraka34 Yeah, I reckon things have changed with globalization in connection with capitalism, technology advances, and the general way of doin business. No going back I suppose is probably right.
Excuse the weird double but different postThe so-called Einstein visa is aimed at people born abroad who have earned “sustained acclaim,” including renowned researchers or business leaders, award-winning performing artists and Olympic athletes. Applicants are instructed to submit evidence of a history of accomplishment or of a “one-time” achievement, such as a “Pulitzer, Oscar [or] Olympic Medal,” according to the requirements for the visa.
And her parents are in the US through chain migration because she sponsored them. But Trump is against immigration - legal and illegal and chain migration. Cadet bone spurs also claimed he would run into the school (unarmed even!) when the shooter in florida started firing.
artists rendering:
It's true that other countries have been willing to build up their dollar holdings over many years and that this has helped support the standard of living in the US. However, I don't believe for a moment that there are no limits to that process. The dollar used to be the de facto world currency, but that's already far less true than it was, so I suspect that we're nearing the end of the period when the US can continue to run a high trade deficit without suffering any effects from that. Such effects could include:
- weakening of the value of the dollar (increasing the price domestic consumers pay for those imported goods)
- much higher potential for a bank run if foreign investors decide to transfer their holdings
- increased foreign ownership of US firms, resulting in a lower proportion of profits benefiting the domestic economy
Mosler's argument depends on flows of goods and services having real effects, but financial flows having no real effects. While the essay he's written linked above is short and therefore his argument may have been more developed elsewhere this seems a curious conclusion on the face of it. Remember that an increasing proportion of trade worldwide relates to things which do not have any direct impact on standards of living (like marketing, financial loans & guarantees, insurance and intellectual property). That doesn't mean that those things have no real impacts though - just think about the worldwide recession caused by the financial crash in 2008.
The argument is also advanced that there is no foreign capital involved in the trade. If a US citizen wants to buy chinese goods he could do so by taking out a loan with a US bank. That results in the citizen having the goods, the bank holding a loan and a savings account and the chinese controlling the account. Mosler concludes that as the finance originated as domestic credit that means there is no foreign capital. This is a misunderstanding. It's true that savings would not normally be defined as capital, but as I noted above the desire for foreigners to hold dollar savings is far from unlimited. I suspect that the majority of new holdings will not remain as savings in perpetuity, but be held for investment purposes, i.e. foreign capital has been created as a result of the trade deficit. Those investment holdings could be used to buy things in America (such as companies or property) or transferred overseas - either of which uses would have an impact on the US economy. The essay refers to China a lot. That country has spent huge amounts of capital overseas in recent years - and that capital has mainly originated from trade.
Mosler makes a big thing about being outside the mainstream of economic thinking. It's certainly true that people willing to 'think outside the box' are much more likely to be responsible for developments of knowledge. It's also true though that the theories of such people are much more likely to be wrong ...
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business. I mean, what if this hypothetical lesbian couple lived in a town similar to the one I grew up in, where there was only one funeral home?? They should be forced to drive 20, 50, 100 miles to find someone who will embalm or cremate their loved one?? It's absurd.
Hey everyone, there is nothing to worry about. We should want trade-wars because they are easy to win. Well who knew?? I guess we have nothing to worry about then. Donald Trump says it's gonna be as simple as 1, 2, 3.
This is no different than putting your crazy uncle who no one wants over for Thanksgiving in charge of the country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html
If you wonder how much strong i an :
Step 1. Announce it
Step 2. Get the Russians involved
Step 3. ?????
Step 4. Profit.
Easy as 1, 2, 3!
Can you expand on what costs you are referring to? The basis is sound for a monetarily sovereign free-floating FIAT currency, no foreign capital is involved, it is denominated in US dollars (i.e. "reserve accounts") at the Federal Reserve.
From the St' Louis Fed:
"As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Moreover, there will always be a market for U.S. government debt at home because the U.S. government has the only means of creating risk-free dollar-denominated assets (by virtue of never facing insolvency and paying interest rates over the inflation rate, e.g., TIPS—Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities)."
[quote]"It's true that other countries have been willing to build up their dollar holdings over many years and that this has helped support the standard of living in the US. However, I don't believe for a moment that there are no limits to that process. The dollar used to be the de facto world currency, but that's already far less true than it was, so I suspect that we're nearing the end of the period when the US can continue to run a high trade deficit without suffering any effects from that. Such effects could include:
- weakening of the value of the dollar (increasing the price domestic consumers pay for those imported goods)
- much higher potential for a bank run if foreign investors decide to transfer their holdings
- increased foreign ownership of US firms, resulting in a lower proportion of profits benefiting the domestic economy"[/quote]
Being the world reserve currency means absolutely nothing. If the world decided to switch to something else, it would not matter in the slightest. The petrodollar is a similar fear-mongering tactic that has no basis in reality. You make all of these claims with no supporting evidence, logic, or theory- global reserve currency has nothing to do with the value of the dollar, etc.
[quote]"Mosler's argument depends on flows of goods and services having real effects, but financial flows having no real effects. While the essay he's written linked above is short and therefore his argument may have been more developed elsewhere this seems a curious conclusion on the face of it. Remember that an increasing proportion of trade worldwide relates to things which do not have any direct impact on standards of living (like marketing, financial loans & guarantees, insurance and intellectual property). That doesn't mean that those things have no real impacts though - just think about the worldwide recession caused by the financial crash in 2008."[/quote]
Yes, the worldwide recession A.K.A. the 'Minsky moment'. Guess who Minsky was and why he was the one who predicted it?
[quote]"The argument is also advanced that there is no foreign capital involved in the trade. If a US citizen wants to buy chinese goods he could do so by taking out a loan with a US bank. That results in the citizen having the goods, the bank holding a loan and a savings account and the chinese controlling the account. Mosler concludes that as the finance originated as domestic credit that means there is no foreign capital. This is a misunderstanding. It's true that savings would not normally be defined as capital, but as I noted above the desire for foreigners to hold dollar savings is far from unlimited. I suspect that the majority of new holdings will not remain as savings in perpetuity, but be held for investment purposes, i.e. foreign capital has been created as a result of the trade deficit. Those investment holdings could be used to buy things in America (such as companies or property) or transferred overseas - either of which uses would have an impact on the US economy. The essay refers to China a lot. That country has spent huge amounts of capital overseas in recent years - and that capital has mainly originated from trade."[/quote]
There is no foreign capital involved. Enlighten me then on what foreign capital exists here? So what if foreign investors use their dollars to boost our economy by spending into it? How on earth is that a bad thing? If they transfer their dollars overseas and decide not to use risk-free assets at the Fed, so what? I fail to see how this is a dire situation.
[quote]"Mosler makes a big thing about being outside the mainstream of economic thinking. It's certainly true that people willing to 'think outside the box' are much more likely to be responsible for developments of knowledge. It's also true though that the theories of such people are much more likely to be wrong ..." [/quote]
Yet they keep getting it right. 'Minsky moment' on the global recession. Kelton's predictions on Greece. Mosler made his wealth predicting that Italy could not default on the Lira...
There's something you are missing. There are other people in the world. Your parents, grandparents, disabled people, women, children. They aren't as strong as you. What about them? They should get up out of their wheelchair and what exactly?
So what right, you are strong now. In 10 years you might not be. When you are young you think things will last forever, they don't. You could have a major illness or a surgery gone bad or get hit by a car. Then guess what. Some other guy will be like we only need to worry about the strong, get lost. There's always someone stronger.
Licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous, to the point where states are requiring two year degrees to be a hair braider. This is pure protectionism, and it keeps people who wish to work in a state of poverty by creating further barriers to entry.
Plus, as we see by jjstraka34's argument, many people view this as an excuse for the state curtailing further liberties, as if people should be grateful for being granted the right to earn an honest living. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is horrifying. You should not have to trade in your religious or moral beliefs just to put food on the table.
I'm not too surprised by the finding. Conservatives place more value on physical strength and are more likely to work out. Also, conservatives are less likely to have a college degree, which means they're more likely to have a blue-collar job that requires more physical strength.
You imply that liberal men are genetically inferior to conservatives, saying that people favor liberal policies if they're weak and ineffectual. This comes off more like self-congratulatory bragging about the superiority of one's body and mind and views than a scientific judgment.
Education is more correlated with liberal views. Does this mean we should congratulate liberals on their superior enlightenment?
This isn't kindergarten--we don't *have* to like each other. We don't *have* to approve of other people's choices, or lifestyles, or opinions. If a person from group A does not wish to associate with people from group B then no one can *force* them to do so. You cannot legislate that people treat each other fairly, at least on an individual basis, because you cannot enforce such a law. There are people who don't like *me* because of my demographic--this doesn't bother me at all, because I couldn't care less what other people think of me personally.
As I have noted many times before, if a business owner wishes to commit economic suicide by turning away paying customers that is their choice to make. Once word of their poor choices begins to spread the market will deal with it as that business owner goes out of business. Yes, people can cherry-pick exceptions or create hypothetical scenarios such as "what if that is the only florist in the entire county?" but those scenarios are still only hypothetical and thus not real. We deal in reality--if the only florist in the county is a racist jerk then order flowers online. If you don't have Internet access...well, then I can't help you--try their toll-free phone number. If you claim that you don't have a phone...well, in that case I simply don't believe you.
*************
Two security researchers (as in "private security", not "publicly traded shares") think they know what caused the "sonic attack" in the Havana embassy--two ultrasonic listening devices were too close to each other and this caused an interference pattern, leading to the physical symptoms and neurological problems.
Other factor is that conservatives tends to live outside of big cities.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578811426/trump-will-protect-health-workers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds
The examples cited here include a nurse who didn't want to give POST-OP care to a woman who got an abortion. Does that mean that nurse will refuse to ever treat that patient again for any reason?? Another example is a pediatrician who wouldn't treat the CHILD of lesbian parents. And we are made to believe that it is these particular health care workers who are having their rights violated.
Does a Muslim restaurateur have to serve me a non-halal meal because I showed up and ordered it? If he doesn't ,then he is refusing service to me based on my religious beliefs (since I am not Muslim and can eat whatever I want). According to the logic being used, he *must* serve me such a meal even if that would cause his kitchen to become out of compliance with *his* religious beliefs.
So yeah, I guess we have to live with the bigoted bakers of this country. Screw them, I hope they all end up bankrupt living in a gutter, but whatever. But dispensing healthcare, prescription drugs, and funeral services are an entirely different matter.