The US already tried a weak federal government with little power to influence, well, anything, and in short order they had to write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution
That oversimplifies the events a bit, does not it?
If assuring industrial and agricultural capacity is of a national interest, then it is clear that the national government has a role in these sectors.
The only acceptable means of achieving those goals is for the government to stick to the enumerated activities: enforcing contracts, fighting crime, protecting against foreign enemies.
Going beyond that erodes the very freedoms we value even above prosperity.
The fact that some progressives care about money doesn't contradict my point.
The "point", which you stated, but would not substantiate with any citations — despite my request...
You seem to consider yourself entitled to your own facts and I have no interest in discussions with such people. Psychiatry always seemed a depressing subject to me.
In a perfect world, perhaps, but any nation government is going to have considerable interest in assuring, for instance, that agricultural output is stable, that energy production is able to support the economy, and that industrial capacity is maintained.
The government — indeed, all of us — have interest in this being the case, yes. That assuring this is, somehow, the government's responsibility is highly disputable.
the US has tended to prefer private ownership with the government taking the "carrot and stick" approach
You seem to imply, we stick to private property and (mostly) free markets, because they work better. I do not believe, we do. Our reasons are simply human rights — it is my right to sell my labor to whoever wishes to buy it, it is my right to buy labor from (employ) whoever wishes to sell it, it is my right to make and sell products and services. What few exceptions there are, they are regrettable and should be abolished.
Yes, China or Russia may have adopted Capitalism and the free markets because it is more efficient. But America stuck to them, because we were — or strove to be — a free country, where everything is allowed unless explicitly prohibited as demonstrably injurious to others.
Our prosperity is due to our freedoms, but even if some other method of running a society proves superior in the future (Technocracy?), we will, hopefully, stick to the liberties and the egalitarianism.
Citation needed. Desperately... Have they become better educated, on average, than they were 10 years ago? You did read the article I linked to, right? It says the percentage of Republicans in the profession declined over the decades — has there been an increase in education quality among journalists during the same period?
Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else
Can I ask for a citation again? Or should I accept the fact, that New York, Chicago, LA, and the Silicon Valley are such Republican strongholds, as evidence for your assertion?
Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.
Point was — and remains — journalists are, overwhelmingly, Illiberal. Whatever the reason for it, the fact explains their bias in coverage in general and assigning blame in particular.
My Latin is rusty, but the sentiment should be clear — the government should stay away from the industry and the markets. Its only legitimate role is to enforce laws and contracts.
Trying to boost certain industries, while a welcome contrast to the previous Administrations' attempts to sabotage some, is just as suspicious and ultimately unfair.
Maybe it is Ok for the State department to champion American companies abroad. Hopefully, Trump is not planning to go beyond the above listed activities and will not, as President, repeat the stunt he pulled with Carrier as President-elect.
support the quirks of the EC only when it suits them, and scream civil fucking war if it's pointed out that the EC has other quirks too that could, at least in theory
No, sunshine, not even "in theory". Each State is free to instruct its electors to vote in whichever way the State wishes — and most States instruct them to vote for whoever won the State, regardless of the margin.
It is not up to the electors. Not even in theory. Though a State may choose to revise its law regarding the subject, an attempt to make such change retroactive would, indeed, be a cause for "civil war" — which the precious snowflakes will, of course, lose in a couple of hours, given the attitudes towards violence and weapons prevailing among them.
Besides, I was not talking about "theory", when I said "he won fair and square". I was talking about practice. Suck it up already, quit making a mess.
Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I'm sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.
the electors are entirely free to vote for Clinton or some other person if they so choose
Wow! Still stuck on denial? That's unhealthy, man. Most of your kind are well into the the depression stage already... MoveOn, so to speak.
Though I admit to have partaken of some relish last month, which was due not only to the justifiable joy of my vindicating victory, but also from the harder to justify glee over your spectacular loss, it is becoming kinda tedious... Please, apply the necessary ointments to wherever it still feels sore and stop making yourself an object of continuing mockery. I'm not especially proud of the parts of my personality, that still savors ridiculing your kind...
See - it's not that you criticize, it's having a good enough reason to criticize.
All criticism of Obama was racist, get it? And, for good measure, racism-themed insults were imagined where there weren't any... Here is one good collection. There is absolutely no doubt, that, had Hillary Clinton won, the same verbiage would've been recycled with the word "racism" replaced by the word "sexism". Her side already blames sexism for the loss — we would've had 8 more years of it being scandalous to criticize the President.
I for one welcome the comeback of the dissent is patriotic notion...
Now remind me who blocked him from closing down gitmo...
No one can block the President from doing whatever he wants with the military. He is the Commander in Chief, remember? And Guantanamo is a military prison — that's the whole reason it was used by Bush to hold foreign combatants out of reach of America's civil legal system.
So, yes, Obama could have just let all of the inmates loose. Into Cuba or into Antarctica or anywhere else... Or he could've killed them — the way he deliberately killed tens and hundreds of would-be detainees to avoid having to explain to his base, why Guantanamo population is growing... Including Osama bin Laden.
Don't forget Bush! Obama inherited DEA from his predecessor, didn't he? 8 years of Presidency is not enough to fix a federal law-enforcement agency, especially if you pick Attorney Generals for their SocialJustice credentials, rather than the ability to run a sizeable organization. (An ability, Obama himself never had either.)
And, unlike closing Guantanamo, Obama never even promised to reign-in the Drug Enforcement Administration — so we can't hold him responsible for its abuses, can we?
Did you link the right story? I don't see what it had to do with Twitter.
What I linked to had to do with BLM containing Black Supremacists, bent not merely on subjugating or mocking, but outright killing Whites. That Twitter protects them is covered by TFA itself.
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
This is amazing. I was going to post something snarky to the effect that, had Republicans done some kind of major overhaul of national healthcare in recent years, they would've been blamed for the decline of longevity.
But reality is even stranger than what I imagined — although Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, the Democrats blame Republicans for nation's worsening health anyway. Because of something they may do in the future!..
Now, the Anonymous Coward may have been sarcastic. But the moderators, who've elevated him to "Score: 4, Insightful" (at the time of this typing), certainly weren't...
Please, elaborate — how is it a "good thing"? I'll admit, that it is nicer to be relatively tall — taller (Napoleon once said: longer) than others. But why is it desirable for humanity to raise the average height?
it indicates greater development
Are giraffes "greater developed" than humans or even gazelles?
will likely be key to our self-direct evolution as masters of both Earth and the galaxy
The key to both will be intelligence and technology. A larger personal body-size is more likely do be an impediment than advantage — you'll need bigger spaceships carrying more supplies. And to what end? To be able to take on some alien savage in hand-to-hand combat — instead of using a weapon?
The flea-bitten bastards of Pizarro conquered the Inca not because they were bigger — he was, but his crew weren't. Cortes was, apparently, shorter than Montesuma as well. But the invaders had firearms...
Which you would not cite despite an explicit request...
the definition one uses to become or remain wealthy.
Citing definitions rarely makes one wealthy. Given your cavalier attitude towards the meanings of the very words you are using, I'm beginning to doubt the value of continuing the conversation...
Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go...?
They had value only by convention and that convention changed.
That means, the money is failing in one of its primary purposes — being means of storing value.
When inflation rises, the interest rate for the best savings accounts will rise as well (ditto new CDs).
Whether you can still beat inflation or not, the point is, you are losing some of the wealth you had. The government, which spent the freshly-printed money before it loses value, gains gained what you lose — thus making it indistinguishable from tax. Whether that's good or bad, it is a form of taxation.
Your arguments make a case for it being a "good" form of taxation — you should stick to that and stop denying, that it is a tax...
Small amounts of inflation are NOT a "tax on wealth." I suppose you might consider it a "tax on money you hide under your mattress."
Wherever I keep it — under mattress, in a sock, or in a savings account — inflation (small or large) taxes it away.
But in the real world, mild inflation encourages people with wealth to get that money out from under their mattress
And even then I am not gaining as much from my investment, as I should've. But, yeah, taxes are often used to discourage some behaviors while encouraging others — a regrettable practice, which itself is a government overreach, I might add.
Unless you have a giant money bin full of enough to keep you going for the rest of your life already, you likely would do much WORSE in a deflationary economy than having mild 1-2% inflation with its supposed "tax."
All of this is irrelevant to my point. Which was, and remains: inflation eats away at savings.
The $100 earned today would buy me 25 cartons of milk. I can not consume so much, so I buy only one carton and save the money. Well, a week later, when I go to buy another carton, it costs slightly more — through no fault of my own, I've lost some of the honestly earned $100.
Deflation may be bad, but that only reinforces, what I said: the two reasons offered by TFA for BitCoin's future rise contradict each other.
Slashdot Mirror
That oversimplifies the events a bit, does not it?
The only acceptable means of achieving those goals is for the government to stick to the enumerated activities: enforcing contracts, fighting crime, protecting against foreign enemies.
Going beyond that erodes the very freedoms we value even above prosperity.
The "point", which you stated, but would not substantiate with any citations — despite my request...
You seem to consider yourself entitled to your own facts and I have no interest in discussions with such people. Psychiatry always seemed a depressing subject to me.
The government — indeed, all of us — have interest in this being the case, yes. That assuring this is, somehow, the government's responsibility is highly disputable.
You seem to imply, we stick to private property and (mostly) free markets, because they work better. I do not believe, we do. Our reasons are simply human rights — it is my right to sell my labor to whoever wishes to buy it, it is my right to buy labor from (employ) whoever wishes to sell it, it is my right to make and sell products and services. What few exceptions there are, they are regrettable and should be abolished.
Yes, China or Russia may have adopted Capitalism and the free markets because it is more efficient. But America stuck to them, because we were — or strove to be — a free country, where everything is allowed unless explicitly prohibited as demonstrably injurious to others.
Our prosperity is due to our freedoms, but even if some other method of running a society proves superior in the future (Technocracy?), we will, hopefully, stick to the liberties and the egalitarianism.
Citation needed. Desperately... Have they become better educated, on average, than they were 10 years ago? You did read the article I linked to, right? It says the percentage of Republicans in the profession declined over the decades — has there been an increase in education quality among journalists during the same period?
Can I ask for a citation again? Or should I accept the fact, that New York, Chicago, LA, and the Silicon Valley are such Republican strongholds, as evidence for your assertion?
Point was — and remains — journalists are, overwhelmingly, Illiberal. Whatever the reason for it, the fact explains their bias in coverage in general and assigning blame in particular.
The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.
Here is, what real friendship looks like
Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...
My Latin is rusty, but the sentiment should be clear — the government should stay away from the industry and the markets. Its only legitimate role is to enforce laws and contracts.
Trying to boost certain industries, while a welcome contrast to the previous Administrations' attempts to sabotage some, is just as suspicious and ultimately unfair.
Maybe it is Ok for the State department to champion American companies abroad. Hopefully, Trump is not planning to go beyond the above listed activities and will not, as President, repeat the stunt he pulled with Carrier as President-elect.
You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.
Hardly surprising, given the personal politics of the overwhelming majority of journalists.
No, sunshine, not even "in theory". Each State is free to instruct its electors to vote in whichever way the State wishes — and most States instruct them to vote for whoever won the State, regardless of the margin.
It is not up to the electors. Not even in theory. Though a State may choose to revise its law regarding the subject, an attempt to make such change retroactive would, indeed, be a cause for "civil war" — which the precious snowflakes will, of course, lose in a couple of hours, given the attitudes towards violence and weapons prevailing among them.
Besides, I was not talking about "theory", when I said "he won fair and square". I was talking about practice. Suck it up already, quit making a mess.
Earth to Shane_Optima: the fat lady has sung :
Wow! Still stuck on denial? That's unhealthy, man. Most of your kind are well into the the depression stage already... MoveOn, so to speak.
Though I admit to have partaken of some relish last month, which was due not only to the justifiable joy of my vindicating victory, but also from the harder to justify glee over your spectacular loss, it is becoming kinda tedious... Please, apply the necessary ointments to wherever it still feels sore and stop making yourself an object of continuing mockery. I'm not especially proud of the parts of my personality, that still savors ridiculing your kind...
All criticism of Obama was racist, get it? And, for good measure, racism-themed insults were imagined where there weren't any... Here is one good collection. There is absolutely no doubt, that, had Hillary Clinton won, the same verbiage would've been recycled with the word "racism" replaced by the word "sexism". Her side already blames sexism for the loss — we would've had 8 more years of it being scandalous to criticize the President.
I for one welcome the comeback of the dissent is patriotic notion...
Eight years ago these people mocked McCain as "out of touch" for his reluctance to use a computer...
Turns out, they need two layers of aides themselves to be able to tell an e-mail scam... Hypocrite scum.
Khm, "unfit"? When I called Obama "unfit", you called me racist. If I called Hillary Clinton "unfit", you would've called me sexist.
You are calling Trump unfit — what do you call yourself? He won — fair and square. Suck it up, cupcakes...
Come January 20th and the team stops being "transition team" and becomes "Executive Government". Though we'd rather not, we can wait 'till then...
No one can block the President from doing whatever he wants with the military. He is the Commander in Chief, remember? And Guantanamo is a military prison — that's the whole reason it was used by Bush to hold foreign combatants out of reach of America's civil legal system.
So, yes, Obama could have just let all of the inmates loose. Into Cuba or into Antarctica or anywhere else... Or he could've killed them — the way he deliberately killed tens and hundreds of would-be detainees to avoid having to explain to his base, why Guantanamo population is growing... Including Osama bin Laden.
Don't forget Bush! Obama inherited DEA from his predecessor, didn't he? 8 years of Presidency is not enough to fix a federal law-enforcement agency, especially if you pick Attorney Generals for their Social Justice credentials, rather than the ability to run a sizeable organization. (An ability, Obama himself never had either.)
And, unlike closing Guantanamo, Obama never even promised to reign-in the Drug Enforcement Administration — so we can't hold him responsible for its abuses, can we?
while protecting the Black ones?
Did you link the right story? I don't see what it had to do with Twitter.
What I linked to had to do with BLM containing Black Supremacists, bent not merely on subjugating or mocking, but outright killing Whites. That Twitter protects them is covered by TFA itself.
What other than racism could explain Twitter banning the White-supremacists, while protecting the Black ones?
Fook Twitter...
This is amazing. I was going to post something snarky to the effect that, had Republicans done some kind of major overhaul of national healthcare in recent years, they would've been blamed for the decline of longevity.
But reality is even stranger than what I imagined — although Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, the Democrats blame Republicans for nation's worsening health anyway. Because of something they may do in the future!..
Now, the Anonymous Coward may have been sarcastic. But the moderators, who've elevated him to "Score: 4, Insightful" (at the time of this typing), certainly weren't...
Is it? You do not cite anything to support this claim... At best, the notion is controversial...
So, whales are smarter than us? Men — smarter than women?
Your original claim was about size, not the more amorphous "development".
Are you equating size with development?
Please, elaborate — how is it a "good thing"? I'll admit, that it is nicer to be relatively tall — taller (Napoleon once said: longer) than others. But why is it desirable for humanity to raise the average height?
Are giraffes "greater developed" than humans or even gazelles?
The key to both will be intelligence and technology. A larger personal body-size is more likely do be an impediment than advantage — you'll need bigger spaceships carrying more supplies. And to what end? To be able to take on some alien savage in hand-to-hand combat — instead of using a weapon?
The flea-bitten bastards of Pizarro conquered the Inca not because they were bigger — he was, but his crew weren't. Cortes was, apparently, shorter than Montesuma as well. But the invaders had firearms...
It may be a fascinating field of study, but there are no practical conclusions to make.
What are you going to do — ban the C-sections and have these additional 6+ per mille of children die during birth (possibly taking moms with them)?
For better or worse, humans can't be treated like poodles, where those deviating from the set standards are neutered...
Which you would not cite despite an explicit request...
Citing definitions rarely makes one wealthy. Given your cavalier attitude towards the meanings of the very words you are using, I'm beginning to doubt the value of continuing the conversation...
That means, the money is failing in one of its primary purposes — being means of storing value.
Whether you can still beat inflation or not, the point is, you are losing some of the wealth you had. The government, which spent the freshly-printed money before it loses value, gains gained what you lose — thus making it indistinguishable from tax. Whether that's good or bad, it is a form of taxation.
Your arguments make a case for it being a "good" form of taxation — you should stick to that and stop denying, that it is a tax...
Well, he does not spend money either, but TFA still blames him for the future "binge" anyway...
Wherever I keep it — under mattress, in a sock, or in a savings account — inflation (small or large) taxes it away.
And even then I am not gaining as much from my investment, as I should've. But, yeah, taxes are often used to discourage some behaviors while encouraging others — a regrettable practice, which itself is a government overreach, I might add.
All of this is irrelevant to my point. Which was, and remains: inflation eats away at savings.
The $100 earned today would buy me 25 cartons of milk. I can not consume so much, so I buy only one carton and save the money. Well, a week later, when I go to buy another carton, it costs slightly more — through no fault of my own, I've lost some of the honestly earned $100.
Deflation may be bad, but that only reinforces, what I said: the two reasons offered by TFA for BitCoin's future rise contradict each other.