There's a new study about direct cash transfers of $1000 to poor families. It was done in Kenya, so the money donated had an especially strong impact. Surprisingly enough, it didn't disrupt the local economy.
they could find little in the way of adverse effects from the experiment, either in villages that got the cash or in those that didn’t. Spending on temptation goods — such as cigarettes, alcohol and gambling — did not increase. People didn’t work less. Rates of domestic violence didn’t change, nor did more children drop out of school. Local income inequality levels did not change. And contrary to a common fear, the program had minimal effect on prices: Inflation increased less than 1 percent over and above Kenya’s overall rate.
Apparently the money spread around and bumped up economic growth, to the extent that it made more money than was actually donated.
Every $100 given directly to the poorest households was generating between $250 and $270 in GDP. That’s a fiscal multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 2.7 18 months after the money was spent — a huge number by global standards.
How come? Because the very poor spend their money locally, and the shops they spend it at, in turn, spend it locally again, a chain effect that stimulates demand and lifts revenue for the tiny businesses throughout the area. The research found some evidence — though not conclusive — that local wages had risen, perhaps more strongly in villages that directly received cash than in their neighbors.
There's a new study about direct cash transfers of $1000 to poor families. It was done in Kenya, so the money donated had an especially strong impact. Surprisingly enough, it didn't disrupt the local economy.
they could find little in the way of adverse effects from the experiment, either in villages that got the cash or in those that didn’t. Spending on temptation goods — such as cigarettes, alcohol and gambling — did not increase. People didn’t work less. Rates of domestic violence didn’t change, nor did more children drop out of school. Local income inequality levels did not change. And contrary to a common fear, the program had minimal effect on prices: Inflation increased less than 1 percent over and above Kenya’s overall rate.
Apparently the money spread around and bumped up economic growth, to the extent that it made more money than was actually donated.
Every $100 given directly to the poorest households was generating between $250 and $270 in GDP. That’s a fiscal multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 2.7 18 months after the money was spent — a huge number by global standards.
How come? Because the very poor spend their money locally, and the shops they spend it at, in turn, spend it locally again, a chain effect that stimulates demand and lifts revenue for the tiny businesses throughout the area. The research found some evidence — though not conclusive — that local wages had risen, perhaps more strongly in villages that directly received cash than in their neighbors.
So welfare, but not really, it was just a one time payment.
Those results aren’t surprising due to the sample size used, and where it was used (underdeveloped country, rural only).
I have a conversation starter with friends:
If I gave you $50 right now, what would you do with it?
Without a question a vast majority of it would spend it (on what is another question - but I can usually boil it down to a certain feeling) because extra money is a luxury.
People are already use to living within their means, and an extra influx of cash allows them to briefly go above their means.
It would only start effecting inflation if it was consistent, and it effected more than 0.0002% of the population.
This is why food stamps (which the Trump Administration is kicking 700,000 people off of for no discernable reason, ESPECIALLY given the ongoing handout to farmers) are actually a fantastic economic stimulant. Every penny gets spent and recirculated.
@deltago: That's the thing--the inflation wasn't even localized. It wasn't just that it failed to result in inflation across the entire nation of Kenya; it didn't result in local inflation, either. It was a 1% bump, and you'd expect it to increase far more than that considering how much money those families received.
The truly notable thing is that it didn't decrease labor participation. That's the one primary reason people have been skeptical of redistribution programs. The fact that it boosted the economy is the strongest argument in favor of it. I'd like to see the experiment conducted on low-income families in a modern economy.
Personally, I'd save the $50. But for what it's worth, spending the money does more for the economy than just letting it sit in the bank. People these days advocate saving more and more, but on the macro scale, an economy in which people are opting to save money instead of spend it is not a strong economy. Businesses can't sell unless customers are willing to spend, and customers can't spend when they don't have money.
@deltago: That's the thing--the inflation wasn't even localized. It wasn't just that it failed to result in inflation across the entire nation of Kenya; it didn't result in local inflation, either. It was a 1% bump, and you'd expect it to increase far more than that considering how much money those families received.
The truly notable thing is that it didn't decrease labor participation. That's the one primary reason people have been skeptical of redistribution programs. The fact that it boosted the economy is the strongest argument in favor of it. I'd like to see the experiment conducted on low-income families in a modern economy.
Personally, I'd save the $50. But for what it's worth, spending the money does more for the economy than just letting it sit in the bank. People these days advocate saving more and more, but on the macro scale, an economy in which people are opting to save money instead of spend it is not a strong economy. Businesses can't sell unless customers are willing to spend, and customers can't spend when they don't have money.
I seem to remember when Sarah Palin was still a thing nationally that every resident of Alaska gets a certain amount of money yearly because of the state's oil revenues. And it's well over $1000 if I remember correctly.
I seem to remember when Sarah Palin was still a thing nationally that every resident of Alaska gets a certain amount of money yearly because of the state's oil revenues. And it's well over $1000 if I remember correctly.
They do, it is called the Permanent Fund Dividend from a permanent fund created by oil revenue from oil shipped through the Alaska Pipeline, of which the interest derived is the annual dividend (averaged over the previous 5 years). It is typically in the 1-2 thousand dollars per year range for every resident who lived in the state the whole year, minus incarcerated people.
Also Alaska is one of only two states with neither a state income tax or state sales tax to generate revenue (the other, oddly, is New Hampshire). New Hampshire seems to get away with it by massive property taxes, a 5% tax on investment income, and being small and frugal.
According to Wikipeda, about 1/3 of Alaska jobs are in the oil/gas business.
deltago: That's the thing--the inflation wasn't even localized. It wasn't just that it failed to result in inflation across the entire nation of Kenya; it didn't result in local inflation, either. It was a 1% bump, and you'd expect it to increase far more than that considering how much money those families received.
The truly notable thing is that it didn't decrease labor participation. That's the one primary reason people have been skeptical of redistribution programs. The fact that it boosted the economy is the strongest argument in favor of it. I'd like to see the experiment conducted on low-income families in a modern economy.
Personally, I'd save the $50. But for what it's worth, spending the money does more for the economy than just letting it sit in the bank. People these days advocate saving more and more, but on the macro scale, an economy in which people are opting to save money instead of spend it is not a strong economy. Businesses can't sell unless customers are willing to spend, and customers can't spend when they don't have money.
Because it was a one time bump to a select group of people. That's not how inflation works.
If those $1000 payments were consistent, that is when you'd actually start to see a rise in inflation.
Judaism is not a nationality. It's a religion. Being Israeli is a nationality. This is on the heels of a speech gave two days ago that was (once again) about 1000x more anti-semitic than anything Ilhan Omar has ever said, and once again implied that certain American Jews are not sufficiently supportive of Israel. So where are all the intellectual dark web, free speech, free exchange of ideas warriors on this one?? Nowhere to be found. Because it was always disingenuous bullshit.
And what is this meant to convey anyway?? That everyone who is a practicing Jew is by default an Israeli national?? What "nationality" am I because I was baptized and confirmed Catholic?? Italian?? Polish??
So where are all the intellectual dark web, free speech, free exchange of ideas warriors on this one?? Nowhere to be found. Because it was always disingenuous bullshit.
Unfortunately Google and Youtube are hammering down on anything they deem hate speech, so if you are looking for a different opinion you'll have to find it elsewhere. Also, in my opinion, to say that someone's stance on something is "disingenuous bullshit" while having a different opinion, is disingenuous in itself.
On the Judaism is a religion, I agree with you. I myself knew what Trump was up to when he first talked about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. It was made official today.
A while ago in this thread I posted that the majority of Alt-Righter's are Israeli or Jew by faith. I hope we are all waking up to what Trump and the Alt-Right movement are really after.
This is true, but the problem is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act which governs education funding doesn't protect religion - only race, color or national origin. As discrimination is clearly possible on other grounds I would have thought the best solution would be change the Civil Rights Act, but instead Trump is seeking to address a specific problem through the back door.
The NYT article (nyti.ms/2P97cuv) suggests that this solution has quite a bit of bi-partisan support and I can believe that - I don't think it should be acceptable for publicly funded institutions to call the existence of Israel into question for instance. On the other hand of course, I think Israeli policies aimed at denying the possibility of a Palestinian state are just as reprehensible and criticism of such policies should be entirely legitimate. The problem with Trump's action I have is less about its illogicality, but the concern that it's another step towards a blind endorsement of Israeli policies.
The COP25 conference on climate change in Madrid unfortunately looks like ending without much agreement about the way forward. One thing I noted today was Greta Thunberg's speech there. She's been portrayed by climate change deniers as a brat looking for something to take her teenage angst out on. She didn't help defend herself at the UN where she clearly did get emotional - I can understand her lapse there though given she'd just had an encounter with Trump. I said at the time though that was an aberration and her normal style is essentially to use an intellectual and rational approach. At this conference she's back to normal, presenting her arguments on the basis of research and statistics rather than appealing to emotion.
Ted Cruz is questioning the DOJ watchdog and he's not actually questioning the guy. He's just throwing out a long string of bizarre accusations that the FBI and CIA and the DOJ are secretly pawns of the DNC, and then asking questions that don't even relate to his own accusations. He spent at least 90% of the time making accusations instead of asking questions.
Ted Cruz is questioning the DOJ watchdog and he's not actually questioning the guy. He's just throwing out a long string of bizarre accusations that the FBI and CIA and the DOJ are secretly pawns of the DNC, and then asking questions that don't even relate to his own accusations. He spent at least 90% of the time making accusations instead of asking questions.
Simply on the bus ride to work, I have seen no less than 3 tweets, from people ranging from the Chair of the RNC to reporters from the Federalists claiming CNN and MSNBC are not airing the Senate hearing......while those two channels are literally carrying it live, and have been all morning. They will lie about ANYTHING.
And Hawley is saying that the report proves the FBI meddled in a federal election. The report says the exact opposite.
This isn't bias in questioning; this is blatant deception.
It's nothing compared to what Bill Barr did yesterday. He is summarily rejecting the Inspector General report and is basically saying his own hand-picked prosecutor will have the final say. In between lying about what it says. I am more conviced than ever that should Trump lose the election, they will still attempt to keep him in office by any means necessary.
Republicans spend their time monologuing. They might ask one question hoping they get the answer they want or a one word/short answer but then they'll spend their time lying and conspiring and telling the lies they want.
There are zero good Republicans in office anymore. Zero. Don't act surprised, vote them all out.
First - Any ideas on how the UK elections will shake out tomorrow (Today. The polls are probably already open or will open soon), @Grond0@Mantis37 ? Polls seem to point to a relatively comfortable Conservative victory yielding a majority in the House of Commons.
Second - I'm a little confused about the whole Judaism thing. I've seen a lot of takes on the issue, and people seem to be sort of indelicate in their responses. Is Judaism itself a nationality? No. In fact, calling it a nationality (in the US) is kind of propping up the antisemitic trope of Dual Allegiance (The idea that Jews in the USA are loyal to both the USA and Israel). I see that is a major issue.
But most people dont seem to be saying that. It almost sounds like everyone is rejecting the idea that Judaism is anything but a religion. I've known a few Jewish people, and it's pretty clear that they see themselves as a sub-group defined not simply by their religion, but by their culture as well. The English language isnt terribly suited to defining that difference, but antisemitism can be either based in their religion, or in their culture.
While I'm certainly not opposed to Trump signing an executive order to attempt to prevent discrimination of Jewish people on universities as a general concept, what he's actually doing here is a little more nefarious. The definition used by the government to decide if a university if being antisemitic is sufficiently broad that supporting a two-state solution in Israel could be flagged as antisemitic. In that vein, criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians could also be argued as antisemitic. One can raise serious objections to Israeli governmental policies without being antisemetic, and Trump's executive order will make that kind of discourse more challenging.
First - Any ideas on how the UK elections will shake out tomorrow (Today. The polls are probably already open or will open soon), @Grond0@Mantis37 ? Polls seem to point to a relatively comfortable Conservative victory yielding a majority in the House of Commons.
Second - I'm a little confused about the whole Judaism thing. I've seen a lot of takes on the issue, and people seem to be sort of indelicate in their responses. Is Judaism itself a nationality? No. In fact, calling it a nationality (in the US) is kind of propping up the antisemitic trope of Dual Allegiance (The idea that Jews in the USA are loyal to both the USA and Israel). I see that is a major issue.
But most people dont seem to be saying that. It almost sounds like everyone is rejecting the idea that Judaism is anything but a religion. I've known a few Jewish people, and it's pretty clear that they see themselves as a sub-group defined not simply by their religion, but by their culture as well. The English language isnt terribly suited to defining that difference, but antisemitism can be either based in their religion, or in their culture.
While I'm certainly not opposed to Trump signing an executive order to attempt to prevent discrimination of Jewish people on universities as a general concept, what he's actually doing here is a little more nefarious. The definition used by the government to decide if a university if being antisemitic is sufficiently broad that supporting a two-state solution in Israel could be flagged as antisemitic. In that vein, criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians could also be argued as antisemitic. One can raise serious objections to Israeli governmental policies without being antisemetic, and Trump's executive order will make that kind of discourse more challenging.
The default position of American politics for decades has been that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. I've mentioned before how in 2014 in a discussion on a left-wing blog when I called Netanyahu a "butcher" I was accused of being antisemitic by a fellow poster for simply this one statement (this was when Israel was bombing hospitals and schools). But now it's gone so far as that Trump has said on NUMEROUS occasions that American Jews who don't support Israel aren't being loyal enough to (essentially) "their country". Nevermind that their country is the United States of America, and even if they WERE originally from Israel, the idea that they have to show sufficient loyalty to the government of Israel to be considered both good Jews AND good Americans is, as I have said half a dozen times, far more insidiously antisemitic than any example you can possibly point to on the left.
Oh God Oh God Oh God my butt is clenching violently is my unsophisticated take . I strongly resent that working is going to get in the way of drinking my way out of a stupor of despair .
More seriously the polls have seen some tightening towards the end of an awful awful campaign, which gives me a vague hope that a hung parliament will result. Chances are not great for that, maybe 20%, though I am usually pessimistic about these things. The campaign itself has been plagued by the sorts of hoaxes, disinformation, and outright lies that bode ill for the future. Most people seem unenthused by the unappetising choice between Corbyn and Johnson. Johnson was maintaining the lovable buffoon act fairly well for awhile until recently, when he was caught on camera pocketing a journalist's phone in order to avoid looking at a picture of a sick child on the floor of a hospital. Since then has avoided interviews as much as possible, most recently by hiding in a fridge.
On the other side Corbyn suffered badly from allegations of antisemitism within his party (though Conservatives have similar though less publicised problems with Islam etc.). More left wing elements have tended toward support of the Palestinians, but they have also disappeared down the rabbit hole of various conspiracy theories about Zionist plots at times...
When did it become remotely acceptable for a leader of a country to literally CONFISCATE the property of a citizen?? I mean, Trump would get away with it if he did it here, but that would never happen because of the Secret Service. But now it appears his brand of asshole buffoonery has spread across the pond as well.
And Hawley is saying that the report proves the FBI meddled in a federal election. The report says the exact opposite.
This isn't bias in questioning; this is blatant deception.
It's nothing compared to what Bill Barr did yesterday. He is summarily rejecting the Inspector General report and is basically saying his own hand-picked prosecutor will have the final say. In between lying about what it says. I am more conviced than ever that should Trump lose the election, they will still attempt to keep him in office by any means necessary.
Calling for the resignation and disbarment of United States Attorney General William P. Barr, and for other purposes.
Whereas, on March 24, 2019, United States Attorney General William P. Barr deliberately mischaracterized the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” issued by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III;
Whereas, on March 25, 2019, at Attorney General Barr’s direction, the Department of Justice ceased defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), a duly enacted law under the United States Constitution;
Whereas, on April 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr directed then-Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to defy a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee pertaining to its investigation of the 2020 census;
Whereas, on July 8, 2019, Attorney General Barr deliberately mischaracterized the legal reasoning behind the Trump administration’s desire to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and abruptly removed career Department of Justice attorneys in an unprecedented attempt to undermine a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States;
Whereas, on July 16, 2019, Attorney General Barr ignored the recommendation of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division by declining to bring charges against the New York Police Department officer in the death of Eric Garner;
Whereas, on July 17, 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Barr in criminal contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a duly-issued subpoena and deliberate obstruction of congressional oversight authority;
Whereas, on December 4, 2019, Attorney General Barr threatened the withholding of police protection from communities that do not show “support and respect” to law enforcement, a statement that has been interpreted as being directed at communities of color that protest police violence;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has perpetuated and promulgated conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly debunked by United States law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, where he referred to legitimate and legal law enforcement surveillance as “spying”, and while traveling abroad to meet with foreign intelligence officials where he has continued to spread this disinformation;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has used taxpayer funds for international travel to seek foreign assistance in investigating a domestic political rival of the President of the United States;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has sought to undermine the Department of Justice inspector general’s report “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation”, regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Trump campaign; and
Whereas Attorney General Barr has refused to recuse himself from any Ukraine-related matters in which he is allegedly involved: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) condemns United States Attorney General William P. Barr for his despicable comments and actions;
(2) calls on United States Attorney General William P. Barr to resign;
(3) calls on the Virginia State Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(4) calls on the New York State Bar Association to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(5) calls on the District of Columbia Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(6) reaffirms support for the diversity of the United States; and
(7) reaffirms, in the strongest terms, its support for and commitment to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Any ideas on how the UK elections will shake out tomorrow (Today. The polls are probably already open or will open soon), @Grond0@Mantis37 ? Polls seem to point to a relatively comfortable Conservative victory yielding a majority in the House of Commons.
Polling started about half an hour ago, so I'll probably nip out to vote soon. I agree with @Mantis37 that the odds seem to favor a Conservative majority, although it is certainly possible they will just be the largest party in a hung Parliament. For that to happen there would need to be either some movement from the latest polls or more use of tactical voting than in previous elections. The latter is conceivable given that there is far more publicly available information about how people might choose to vote tactically than in any previous election (for instance allowing you to put your postcode into a website to see what the best party to vote tactically would be in your area).
The likely need for tactical voting to prevent a Conservative majority is largely a result of the Brexit party decision near the start of the campaign not to contest any existing Conservative seats. That means that in those seats the Leave vote will nearly all be solidly behind the Conservatives, while the Remain vote is split between several parties. The effective opting out of the Brexit party as a national force has also allowed the Conservatives to greatly squeeze their votes in non-Conservative seats as well. That wasn't what Farage wanted to happen and he clearly would have preferred to be fighting in all seats. However, while he's good in the role of a charismatic face of a party and is able to get a significant minority of people to vote for him in that role, he's never had any interest in actually managing or controlling a party - and in this instance the people who fund and control the party told him what to do.
From the point of view of all except the hardest line no-deal Leave supporters the collapse of the Brexit party is absolutely what they want. There was a significant danger at the start of the election that the Leave vote would be split, with the likely result there would eventually be a second Brexit referendum - probably ending in no Brexit. It now seems probable that the UK will leave the EU at the end of January, despite the fact that a comfortable majority of people in the country don't support Johnson's deal. After the celebrations / commiserations of that have died down, Brexit may be out of the news for a short period. However, it will then start up again as a result of trying to agree a deal with the EU. The fights over the last 3 years will seem very familiar once it becomes much more obvious that the vast majority of the disagreements over Brexit to date have not been about the basis we would exit on (which essentially only covers the treatment of EU citizens in the UK & British citizens in the EU and the financial payments for existing commitments - there are also some specific points about the Irish border, but the details for that are all still to be resolved). Instead most disagreements have concentrated on things like legal jurisdictions, trade, fishing rights and security - all of which would need to be considered as part of a deal with the EU. The chances of getting a comprehensive deal by the end of 2020 seem extremely limited, but that's when the transition period (which keeps existing arrangements) ends. Johnson has said that he will not extend the transition, which means there is likely to be another huge row in the months leading up to a potential no-deal cliff edge.
When did it become remotely acceptable for a leader of a country to literally CONFISCATE the property of a citizen?? I mean, Trump would get away with it if he did it here, but that would never happen because of the Secret Service. But now it appears his brand of asshole buffoonery has spread across the pond as well.
He quickly gave it back. The issue for him is less about the phone and more about how his refusal to look at a picture representing problems in the NHS will be perceived - given that has been Labour's main campaign issue.
Exit polls showing big wins for Boris Johnson in the UK.
It seems simple lies work the best "get Brexit done" is a great simple message because we don't have Brexit but we wannnn it. Toddler logic works seems to work well on elderly voters.
The world is making mistakes with these awful people winning elections based on lies and nationalism.
Things will keep getting worse - which is why they keep getting elected - voters are like "well because things are bad then our lying strongman will surely make things better!" (for himself wink).
So Condolences.....
I guess it's good for the US as the UK will have little choice but to bend over and take whatever "deal" Trump wants to give them.
It will be good for US drug companies and the healthcare industry as well as your NHS gets sold off and privatized by American companies.
Congratulations on playing yourself and isolating yourself from your only allies.
Those results are absolutely brutal for Labour. Corbyn is obviously finished, and one has to really question the wisdom of putting someone up against Johnson who was both a.) wildly unpopular in his own right and b.) has always been fundamentally sympathetic to Brexit. Why buy generic-brand Coke when you can have the real thing?? But yeah, if the NHS starts getting stripped for parts, UK residents will start to get a taste of what a nightmare American healthcare is. And then they'll turn around and wonder how it could have possibly happened. The words "co-pay" and "deductible" might be in your near future. God speed. Countless people you will never meet suffer and die when healthcare services are cut. That is a fact.
Doom. British voters don't tend to like Johnson all that much, but they seem to dislike Corbyn much more. Most especially in the seats that Labour needed to win. More votes will have been cast for parties that oppose Brexit but the British electoral system will not reflect that. On the bright side Johnson may be strong enough that he can ignore some of the loonies in his party, but it will probably be a hard few years for the poor, the disabled, immigrants, and so many other minorities. There will be many struggles from here... and the question of whether future elections will also be fought with disinformation techniques that electoral laws do not restrict adequately.
Maybe I'm overstating things, but this election in the UK feels like it could be a fundamental realignment type election (We have those in the USA. Every so often, an election that is so big and means something so significant that the parties in the USA are forced to shift in order for the system to work).
In this case, I'm thinking that the SNP being both vehemently anti Brexit and anti-union, and being on track to win 55+ seats means it'll be agitating constantly for a new independence referendum. Northern Ireland got sort of thrown to the wolves in the new Brexit Withdrawal agreement, which (I'd guess?) makes Irish reunification a lot more likely, too.
If those things happen, one would assume Labour would need to fundamentally shift their political ideology since Scotland would be unreachable. Labour sliding towards the center displaces the Lib Dems, and you have realignment.
I'm not really sure if UK politics works that way, but the knock on effects from all of this seem very very significant for the Union.
Edit - perhaps a second reading of the situation is to dismiss the size of the election as a combination of the Conservatives being a unified voice on Brexit and Corbyn being so incredibly unliked. I'm sure that's a big part of it. I do wonder what the potential removal of Scotland means for Labour's chances though if things were to remain otherwise unchanged.
Doom. British voters don't tend to like Johnson all that much, but they seem to dislike Corbyn much more. Most especially in the seats that Labour needed to win. More votes will have been cast for parties that oppose Brexit but the British electoral system will not reflect that. On the bright side Johnson may be strong enough that he can ignore some of the loonies in his party, but it will probably be a hard few years for the poor, the disabled, immigrants, and so many other minorities. There will be many struggles from here... and the question of whether future elections will also be fought with disinformation techniques that electoral laws do not restrict adequately.
Since disinformation techniques benefited the conservatives they will of course not want to restrict future disinformation.
Same thing happened in the US Republicans don't want fair elections or any restrictions on lying. They benefit from conspiracy theories and lies and ignorance.
This is a another sad day for freedom and democracy.
We told you guys not to drive the car off the cliff, but ya did anyway.... Good luck.
Doom. British voters don't tend to like Johnson all that much, but they seem to dislike Corbyn much more. Most especially in the seats that Labour needed to win. More votes will have been cast for parties that oppose Brexit but the British electoral system will not reflect that. On the bright side Johnson may be strong enough that he can ignore some of the loonies in his party, but it will probably be a hard few years for the poor, the disabled, immigrants, and so many other minorities. There will be many struggles from here... and the question of whether future elections will also be fought with disinformation techniques that electoral laws do not restrict adequately.
Since disinformation techniques benefited the conservatives they will of course not want to restrict future disinformation.
Same thing happened in the US Republicans don't want fair elections or any restrictions on lying. They benefit from conspiracy theories and lies and ignorance.
This is a another sad day for freedom and democracy.
We told you guys not to drive the car off the cliff, but ya did anyway.... Good luck.
I don't understand how you can say this is a bad day for democracy. It's a bad day for your philosophy but the people spoke. That's what democracy is. People have the right to 'not' agree with you and it's still democracy...
Comments
So welfare, but not really, it was just a one time payment.
Those results aren’t surprising due to the sample size used, and where it was used (underdeveloped country, rural only).
I have a conversation starter with friends:
If I gave you $50 right now, what would you do with it?
Without a question a vast majority of it would spend it (on what is another question - but I can usually boil it down to a certain feeling) because extra money is a luxury.
People are already use to living within their means, and an extra influx of cash allows them to briefly go above their means.
It would only start effecting inflation if it was consistent, and it effected more than 0.0002% of the population.
The truly notable thing is that it didn't decrease labor participation. That's the one primary reason people have been skeptical of redistribution programs. The fact that it boosted the economy is the strongest argument in favor of it. I'd like to see the experiment conducted on low-income families in a modern economy.
Personally, I'd save the $50. But for what it's worth, spending the money does more for the economy than just letting it sit in the bank. People these days advocate saving more and more, but on the macro scale, an economy in which people are opting to save money instead of spend it is not a strong economy. Businesses can't sell unless customers are willing to spend, and customers can't spend when they don't have money.
I seem to remember when Sarah Palin was still a thing nationally that every resident of Alaska gets a certain amount of money yearly because of the state's oil revenues. And it's well over $1000 if I remember correctly.
They do, it is called the Permanent Fund Dividend from a permanent fund created by oil revenue from oil shipped through the Alaska Pipeline, of which the interest derived is the annual dividend (averaged over the previous 5 years). It is typically in the 1-2 thousand dollars per year range for every resident who lived in the state the whole year, minus incarcerated people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
Also Alaska is one of only two states with neither a state income tax or state sales tax to generate revenue (the other, oddly, is New Hampshire). New Hampshire seems to get away with it by massive property taxes, a 5% tax on investment income, and being small and frugal.
According to Wikipeda, about 1/3 of Alaska jobs are in the oil/gas business.
Because it was a one time bump to a select group of people. That's not how inflation works.
If those $1000 payments were consistent, that is when you'd actually start to see a rise in inflation.
Judaism is not a nationality. It's a religion. Being Israeli is a nationality. This is on the heels of a speech gave two days ago that was (once again) about 1000x more anti-semitic than anything Ilhan Omar has ever said, and once again implied that certain American Jews are not sufficiently supportive of Israel. So where are all the intellectual dark web, free speech, free exchange of ideas warriors on this one?? Nowhere to be found. Because it was always disingenuous bullshit.
And what is this meant to convey anyway?? That everyone who is a practicing Jew is by default an Israeli national?? What "nationality" am I because I was baptized and confirmed Catholic?? Italian?? Polish??
Irish!
Unfortunately Google and Youtube are hammering down on anything they deem hate speech, so if you are looking for a different opinion you'll have to find it elsewhere. Also, in my opinion, to say that someone's stance on something is "disingenuous bullshit" while having a different opinion, is disingenuous in itself.
On the Judaism is a religion, I agree with you. I myself knew what Trump was up to when he first talked about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. It was made official today.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-approved-building-permanent-us-embassy-headquarter-jerusalem
A while ago in this thread I posted that the majority of Alt-Righter's are Israeli or Jew by faith. I hope we are all waking up to what Trump and the Alt-Right movement are really after.
This is true, but the problem is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act which governs education funding doesn't protect religion - only race, color or national origin. As discrimination is clearly possible on other grounds I would have thought the best solution would be change the Civil Rights Act, but instead Trump is seeking to address a specific problem through the back door.
The NYT article (nyti.ms/2P97cuv) suggests that this solution has quite a bit of bi-partisan support and I can believe that - I don't think it should be acceptable for publicly funded institutions to call the existence of Israel into question for instance. On the other hand of course, I think Israeli policies aimed at denying the possibility of a Palestinian state are just as reprehensible and criticism of such policies should be entirely legitimate. The problem with Trump's action I have is less about its illogicality, but the concern that it's another step towards a blind endorsement of Israeli policies.
Simply on the bus ride to work, I have seen no less than 3 tweets, from people ranging from the Chair of the RNC to reporters from the Federalists claiming CNN and MSNBC are not airing the Senate hearing......while those two channels are literally carrying it live, and have been all morning. They will lie about ANYTHING.
This isn't bias in questioning; this is blatant deception.
It's nothing compared to what Bill Barr did yesterday. He is summarily rejecting the Inspector General report and is basically saying his own hand-picked prosecutor will have the final say. In between lying about what it says. I am more conviced than ever that should Trump lose the election, they will still attempt to keep him in office by any means necessary.
There are zero good Republicans in office anymore. Zero. Don't act surprised, vote them all out.
First - Any ideas on how the UK elections will shake out tomorrow (Today. The polls are probably already open or will open soon), @Grond0 @Mantis37 ? Polls seem to point to a relatively comfortable Conservative victory yielding a majority in the House of Commons.
Second - I'm a little confused about the whole Judaism thing. I've seen a lot of takes on the issue, and people seem to be sort of indelicate in their responses. Is Judaism itself a nationality? No. In fact, calling it a nationality (in the US) is kind of propping up the antisemitic trope of Dual Allegiance (The idea that Jews in the USA are loyal to both the USA and Israel). I see that is a major issue.
But most people dont seem to be saying that. It almost sounds like everyone is rejecting the idea that Judaism is anything but a religion. I've known a few Jewish people, and it's pretty clear that they see themselves as a sub-group defined not simply by their religion, but by their culture as well. The English language isnt terribly suited to defining that difference, but antisemitism can be either based in their religion, or in their culture.
While I'm certainly not opposed to Trump signing an executive order to attempt to prevent discrimination of Jewish people on universities as a general concept, what he's actually doing here is a little more nefarious. The definition used by the government to decide if a university if being antisemitic is sufficiently broad that supporting a two-state solution in Israel could be flagged as antisemitic. In that vein, criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians could also be argued as antisemitic. One can raise serious objections to Israeli governmental policies without being antisemetic, and Trump's executive order will make that kind of discourse more challenging.
The default position of American politics for decades has been that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. I've mentioned before how in 2014 in a discussion on a left-wing blog when I called Netanyahu a "butcher" I was accused of being antisemitic by a fellow poster for simply this one statement (this was when Israel was bombing hospitals and schools). But now it's gone so far as that Trump has said on NUMEROUS occasions that American Jews who don't support Israel aren't being loyal enough to (essentially) "their country". Nevermind that their country is the United States of America, and even if they WERE originally from Israel, the idea that they have to show sufficient loyalty to the government of Israel to be considered both good Jews AND good Americans is, as I have said half a dozen times, far more insidiously antisemitic than any example you can possibly point to on the left.
Oh God Oh God Oh God my butt is clenching violently is my unsophisticated take
More seriously the polls have seen some tightening towards the end of an awful awful campaign, which gives me a vague hope that a hung parliament will result. Chances are not great for that, maybe 20%, though I am usually pessimistic about these things. The campaign itself has been plagued by the sorts of hoaxes, disinformation, and outright lies that bode ill for the future. Most people seem unenthused by the unappetising choice between Corbyn and Johnson. Johnson was maintaining the lovable buffoon act fairly well for awhile until recently, when he was caught on camera pocketing a journalist's phone in order to avoid looking at a picture of a sick child on the floor of a hospital. Since then has avoided interviews as much as possible, most recently by hiding in a fridge.
On the other side Corbyn suffered badly from allegations of antisemitism within his party (though Conservatives have similar though less publicised problems with Islam etc.). More left wing elements have tended toward support of the Palestinians, but they have also disappeared down the rabbit hole of various conspiracy theories about Zionist plots at times...
Speaking of Partisan Hack Bill Barr
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/757/text?r=18
**RESOLUTION**
Calling for the resignation and disbarment of United States Attorney General William P. Barr, and for other purposes.
Whereas, on March 24, 2019, United States Attorney General William P. Barr deliberately mischaracterized the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” issued by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III;
Whereas, on March 25, 2019, at Attorney General Barr’s direction, the Department of Justice ceased defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), a duly enacted law under the United States Constitution;
Whereas, on April 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr directed then-Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to defy a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee pertaining to its investigation of the 2020 census;
Whereas, on July 8, 2019, Attorney General Barr deliberately mischaracterized the legal reasoning behind the Trump administration’s desire to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and abruptly removed career Department of Justice attorneys in an unprecedented attempt to undermine a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States;
Whereas, on July 16, 2019, Attorney General Barr ignored the recommendation of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division by declining to bring charges against the New York Police Department officer in the death of Eric Garner;
Whereas, on July 17, 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Barr in criminal contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a duly-issued subpoena and deliberate obstruction of congressional oversight authority;
Whereas, on December 4, 2019, Attorney General Barr threatened the withholding of police protection from communities that do not show “support and respect” to law enforcement, a statement that has been interpreted as being directed at communities of color that protest police violence;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has perpetuated and promulgated conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly debunked by United States law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, where he referred to legitimate and legal law enforcement surveillance as “spying”, and while traveling abroad to meet with foreign intelligence officials where he has continued to spread this disinformation;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has used taxpayer funds for international travel to seek foreign assistance in investigating a domestic political rival of the President of the United States;
Whereas Attorney General Barr has sought to undermine the Department of Justice inspector general’s report “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation”, regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Trump campaign; and
Whereas Attorney General Barr has refused to recuse himself from any Ukraine-related matters in which he is allegedly involved: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) condemns United States Attorney General William P. Barr for his despicable comments and actions;
(2) calls on United States Attorney General William P. Barr to resign;
(3) calls on the Virginia State Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(4) calls on the New York State Bar Association to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(5) calls on the District of Columbia Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;
(6) reaffirms support for the diversity of the United States; and
(7) reaffirms, in the strongest terms, its support for and commitment to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Polling started about half an hour ago, so I'll probably nip out to vote soon. I agree with @Mantis37 that the odds seem to favor a Conservative majority, although it is certainly possible they will just be the largest party in a hung Parliament. For that to happen there would need to be either some movement from the latest polls or more use of tactical voting than in previous elections. The latter is conceivable given that there is far more publicly available information about how people might choose to vote tactically than in any previous election (for instance allowing you to put your postcode into a website to see what the best party to vote tactically would be in your area).
The likely need for tactical voting to prevent a Conservative majority is largely a result of the Brexit party decision near the start of the campaign not to contest any existing Conservative seats. That means that in those seats the Leave vote will nearly all be solidly behind the Conservatives, while the Remain vote is split between several parties. The effective opting out of the Brexit party as a national force has also allowed the Conservatives to greatly squeeze their votes in non-Conservative seats as well. That wasn't what Farage wanted to happen and he clearly would have preferred to be fighting in all seats. However, while he's good in the role of a charismatic face of a party and is able to get a significant minority of people to vote for him in that role, he's never had any interest in actually managing or controlling a party - and in this instance the people who fund and control the party told him what to do.
From the point of view of all except the hardest line no-deal Leave supporters the collapse of the Brexit party is absolutely what they want. There was a significant danger at the start of the election that the Leave vote would be split, with the likely result there would eventually be a second Brexit referendum - probably ending in no Brexit. It now seems probable that the UK will leave the EU at the end of January, despite the fact that a comfortable majority of people in the country don't support Johnson's deal. After the celebrations / commiserations of that have died down, Brexit may be out of the news for a short period. However, it will then start up again as a result of trying to agree a deal with the EU. The fights over the last 3 years will seem very familiar once it becomes much more obvious that the vast majority of the disagreements over Brexit to date have not been about the basis we would exit on (which essentially only covers the treatment of EU citizens in the UK & British citizens in the EU and the financial payments for existing commitments - there are also some specific points about the Irish border, but the details for that are all still to be resolved). Instead most disagreements have concentrated on things like legal jurisdictions, trade, fishing rights and security - all of which would need to be considered as part of a deal with the EU. The chances of getting a comprehensive deal by the end of 2020 seem extremely limited, but that's when the transition period (which keeps existing arrangements) ends. Johnson has said that he will not extend the transition, which means there is likely to be another huge row in the months leading up to a potential no-deal cliff edge.
He quickly gave it back. The issue for him is less about the phone and more about how his refusal to look at a picture representing problems in the NHS will be perceived - given that has been Labour's main campaign issue.
It seems simple lies work the best "get Brexit done" is a great simple message because we don't have Brexit but we wannnn it. Toddler logic works seems to work well on elderly voters.
The world is making mistakes with these awful people winning elections based on lies and nationalism.
Things will keep getting worse - which is why they keep getting elected - voters are like "well because things are bad then our lying strongman will surely make things better!" (for himself wink).
So Condolences.....
I guess it's good for the US as the UK will have little choice but to bend over and take whatever "deal" Trump wants to give them.
It will be good for US drug companies and the healthcare industry as well as your NHS gets sold off and privatized by American companies.
Congratulations on playing yourself and isolating yourself from your only allies.
In this case, I'm thinking that the SNP being both vehemently anti Brexit and anti-union, and being on track to win 55+ seats means it'll be agitating constantly for a new independence referendum. Northern Ireland got sort of thrown to the wolves in the new Brexit Withdrawal agreement, which (I'd guess?) makes Irish reunification a lot more likely, too.
If those things happen, one would assume Labour would need to fundamentally shift their political ideology since Scotland would be unreachable. Labour sliding towards the center displaces the Lib Dems, and you have realignment.
I'm not really sure if UK politics works that way, but the knock on effects from all of this seem very very significant for the Union.
Edit - perhaps a second reading of the situation is to dismiss the size of the election as a combination of the Conservatives being a unified voice on Brexit and Corbyn being so incredibly unliked. I'm sure that's a big part of it. I do wonder what the potential removal of Scotland means for Labour's chances though if things were to remain otherwise unchanged.
Since disinformation techniques benefited the conservatives they will of course not want to restrict future disinformation.
Same thing happened in the US Republicans don't want fair elections or any restrictions on lying. They benefit from conspiracy theories and lies and ignorance.
This is a another sad day for freedom and democracy.
We told you guys not to drive the car off the cliff, but ya did anyway.... Good luck.
I don't understand how you can say this is a bad day for democracy. It's a bad day for your philosophy but the people spoke. That's what democracy is. People have the right to 'not' agree with you and it's still democracy...