I guess you forgot the Bush recovery. Commonly referred to as the Clinton Recovery - when it fact the recovery recovered in the spring of 1991.
The media famously laughed at Bush for saying that there were two quarters of economic growth. See what happens with media lies - they work.
Now we have bubble heads like you regurgitating sh!t.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up. NYTimes called it the Clinton Recovery before he even took office:
Signals of the Clinton Recovery - Rebound Is Seen, but a Slow One...
www.nytimes.com/.../signals-of-the-clinton-recovery-rebound-is-seen-but-a-slow-one.ht...
Nov 30, 1992 - A number of business executives say the Clinton expansion may have arrived even before the President-elect moves into the White House.
Maybe they're skeptical because too many people on all sides are politicizing the findings. Maybe if we had a government agency that was just interested in the data. And providing solid evidence.
Too bad we don't have that. The EPA is as politicized as it gets.
So Racism is now justified. Fuk that. And all who think that way.
Re the crops. Those jobs will be gone soon. Then what?
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere. If you get a low paying laborer's job (like I did at 16 tarring roofs) you can prove your worth (by coming to work on time and paying attention to instructions) and then get other jobs (replacing parapet crowns) and then help repointing brick. Each step is more demanding. Each step gives you a higher wage. Each skill set makes you more valuable.
I can get a construction job anywhere even though I haven't done it for 20 years.
Given a choice a construction job is far superior to picking farm produce. One gives you skills that allow you to grow with in the trade the other doesn't.
Well. My understanding is that funds were provided. Remember Obama had a Democratic House and Senate from 2008-1010. Monies were not spent for physical infrastructure. It was spent elsewhere. Can't blame the Republicans for that. The Dems had a larger majority than the Republicans do now,
It should have been spent on bridges but wasn't. Blame the Dems if you want to blame someone.
And no. We're not going to pick up shovels. This is the fu(king 21st century. We have things called bulldozers and backhoes and dump trucks. You can keep your fu(king shovels.
Really? Hoover did a HUUUUGE stimulus program. It didn't work.
Japan's been doing stimulus projects for 20+ years and still have not recovered.
However Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan cut spending and.... the Booming 20s and the Booming 80s.
Hmmm. Maybe if Hoover didn't go the stimulus route, and if the western Democracies didn't start trades wars the the 30s depression would have been simply a downturn.
The point is that gov't spending is not necessarily the answer to all our problems. In fact -- it can be the cause of future problems.
The actual solution is to have a smaller, more constitutionally restricted government. The era of big government, do everything, all-powerful bureaucrats needs to come to a close.
So. You are unable to distinguish between a promoter of individual liberty and a collectivist who considers people little more than pawns to the body collective? Farmers, craftsmen are unable to trade their goods without government say-so.
You promote unlimited government power - but I am a fascist. OK
What's the relevance in that statement?
Can ironworkers and carpenters afford the cost of the buildings they work on? Not necessarily? Do you think the network engineers and programmers, chip makers (and others) who worked on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supercomputer can afford one in their mancave?
Ok. Then according to you I am a fascist. I'm a small-government, free-market,pro-individual rights, live-and-let-live libertarian who wants to pare government down to its core.
If the above description sounds like fascism to you. Then you're a sick deranged fuk.
In Fascism the individual is but a cell in the body politic and it is meaningless on its own, It's a collectivist ideology, antithetical to individual rights and individual freedom -- the SAME as communism.
In communism there is no respect to the individual; no individual liberty; no individual worth - once again the individual is subsumed to the almighty collective.
FUCK fascism and FUCK communism. They're both equally barbaric, equally despicable and equally worthless.
If fascism is capitalism then I, and other libertarians, are fascists. You need to rethink your rhetoric. Not only is it false but it is dangerously unhinged.
--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers.
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 an beyond
No. It shouldn't be. But if the law is broadly written then it could be (at the whim of an inspector). And you would lose in court.
In NY there is alternate side of the street parking. Namely the city cleans one side of the street and you have to move your car. It is acceptable and normal to double park on the other side of the street during the hour and half time period that the street cleaner comes by.
However - the double parking is against the law. And, once in a while, tickets are given to everyone who double parked. And you, the poor schmuck who got the ticket, will not win if you dispute the ticket. The judge will say that double parking is against the law. He may take a few dollars off the ticket but you're still out 60.00+ dollars.
So, the fear is that the city, at their whim, will ticket everyone. How would you like to get a $1000 ticket?
Zoning is generally a good thing. We've already made a distinction between manufacturing and residential. AirBNB doesn't cover that.
Not bothering your neighbors is generally a good thing. But it's also a good thing for a renter to be able to make some money by renting out a spare bedroom. Example you have an apartment and so does your girlfriend. You rent out your apartment for the weekend and spend it at your girlfriend's place. And secondly in NYC there are lots of apartment buildings where you DO NOT know your neighbors; where a large percentage of the people are there for 1-2 years at max and only go there to sleep (and rarely seeing or interacting with their immediate neighbors.)
It's also a good thing for people coming to the city. Hotel's are crazy expensive. The money they save on hotels they spend elsewhere.
The city is being ham-handed about this. I can see restricting landlords from renting out apartments but I cannot see why a tenant cannot rent out his PRIMARY residential space. (Emphasized PRIMARY because we want to dissuade people from renting a second apartment for the sole purpose of being a "hotel operator" on AIRBNB).
Very good points about war being inevitable if attempts are made to restrict growth in developing countries.
Nuclear is definitely an option that should not be ignored.
Re solar and wind - I see nothing but growth on horizon; and it doesn't need to be the wet dream of photo-voltaic paints or other such things.
If we can get residential small towns to be energy self-sufficient (whether in the US or the Congo) that will be a godsend in-and-of-itself.
Ocean based wind-farms will soon be a reality. A large percentage of major cities are coastal (Paris, Berlin, Mexico City, Moscow, New Dehli, Beijing being obvious exceptions).
OK. Lots of people don't live in coastal cities:-)
but if ocean based windfarms can take care of NY, LA, London, Tokyo, etc... that would be a great start.
.
I tend to using the Mussolini description:
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
No. What I'm referring to is using the power of the state to enhance your business. If the state does not pass such laws then no. Absolutely not. Are there other potential problems in a laissez-faire society? Of course. But this isn't one of them.
In case you're talking about monopolies there have been a lot of studies showing people attempting to create monopolies but failing. They were able to drive out competitors but not able to recoup their loses in driving them out. The flaw in the studies are that they were only able to look at a small time period (US from the 1830s to 1892 [Sherman Anti-Trust Act])
Sorry. Capitalism is never equal to fascism. It's silly, empty, foolish, ignorant rhetoric to say so.
What's fascism is creating rules and procedures for the expressed purpose of hurting a specific group of people. The US Constitution's check and balances was instituted to curtail such actions. A free-wheeling, unsupervised, bureaucracy with not check and balance is closer to your definition of fascism than the free market.
VCs aren't necessarily into "tying up all of the IP and suing everyone into oblivion." There are many VCs who are hurt by this behavior; and just as important, VCs who are hesitant to get into this space because of such BS.
Stop making things up.
The pseudo-syllogism that
capitalism is bad
VCs are capitalists only in it for the quick profit (never mind examples such as Amazon)
Some legals types create a VC firm which type up IP
Therefore VCs created this environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. He played them like a drum. And they went for it. Probably because they felt he was going to get his butt kicked the more he talked.
I doubt they would have given him the airtime if they thought it was helping him or the Republicans in general.
Not for spending bills such as for infrastructure. That originates in the house and needs a simple majority in both branches.
Yes, of course, for things such as ObamaCare.
I guess you forgot the Bush recovery. Commonly referred to as the Clinton Recovery - when it fact the recovery recovered in the spring of 1991.
...
The media famously laughed at Bush for saying that there were two quarters of economic growth. See what happens with media lies - they work.
Now we have bubble heads like you regurgitating sh!t.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up. NYTimes called it the Clinton Recovery before he even took office:
Signals of the Clinton Recovery - Rebound Is Seen, but a Slow One
www.nytimes.com/.../signals-of-the-clinton-recovery-rebound-is-seen-but-a-slow-one.ht...
Nov 30, 1992 - A number of business executives say the Clinton expansion may have arrived even before the President-elect moves into the White House.
Maybe they're skeptical because too many people on all sides are politicizing the findings. Maybe if we had a government agency that was just interested in the data. And providing solid evidence.
Too bad we don't have that. The EPA is as politicized as it gets.
So Racism is now justified. Fuk that. And all who think that way.
Re the crops. Those jobs will be gone soon. Then what?
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere. If you get a low paying laborer's job (like I did at 16 tarring roofs) you can prove your worth (by coming to work on time and paying attention to instructions) and then get other jobs (replacing parapet crowns) and then help repointing brick. Each step is more demanding. Each step gives you a higher wage. Each skill set makes you more valuable.
I can get a construction job anywhere even though I haven't done it for 20 years.
Given a choice a construction job is far superior to picking farm produce. One gives you skills that allow you to grow with in the trade the other doesn't.
Well. My understanding is that funds were provided. Remember Obama had a Democratic House and Senate from 2008-1010. Monies were not spent for physical infrastructure. It was spent elsewhere. Can't blame the Republicans for that. The Dems had a larger majority than the Republicans do now,
It should have been spent on bridges but wasn't. Blame the Dems if you want to blame someone.
I guess you don't realize that free-market is antithetical with fascism.
Keep calling everyone you disagree with a fascist. And then wonder why things don't work out.
Nice little racist a$$h0le comment there.
And no. We're not going to pick up shovels. This is the fu(king 21st century. We have things called bulldozers and backhoes and dump trucks. You can keep your fu(king shovels.
Really? Hoover did a HUUUUGE stimulus program. It didn't work.
.... the Booming 20s and the Booming 80s.
Japan's been doing stimulus projects for 20+ years and still have not recovered.
However Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan cut spending and
Hmmm. Maybe if Hoover didn't go the stimulus route, and if the western Democracies didn't start trades wars the the 30s depression would have been simply a downturn.
The point is that gov't spending is not necessarily the answer to all our problems. In fact -- it can be the cause of future problems.
The actual solution is to have a smaller, more constitutionally restricted government. The era of big government, do everything, all-powerful bureaucrats needs to come to a close.
So. You are unable to distinguish between a promoter of individual liberty and a collectivist who considers people little more than pawns to the body collective?
Farmers, craftsmen are unable to trade their goods without government say-so.
You promote unlimited government power - but I am a fascist. OK
Stealing? Really. Both sides are playing tit-for-tat now.
Remember Bork? Thomas?
How about Harry Reid and the filibuster for the lower courts.(That's cheating.)
This, right or wrong, good or bad, is the way the game is being played now. Stop pretending that this is a stolen nomination.
What's the relevance in that statement? Can ironworkers and carpenters afford the cost of the buildings they work on? Not necessarily? Do you think the network engineers and programmers, chip makers (and others) who worked on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supercomputer can afford one in their mancave?
Except unions have been going away and that has not happened. Unionization (not counting public service employees) is less than 10%. (AFAIR)
Who? Obama? He's been silent.
Ok. Then according to you I am a fascist. I'm a small-government, free-market,pro-individual rights, live-and-let-live libertarian who wants to pare government down to its core.
If the above description sounds like fascism to you. Then you're a sick deranged fuk.
In Fascism the individual is but a cell in the body politic and it is meaningless on its own, It's a collectivist ideology, antithetical to individual rights and individual freedom -- the SAME as communism.
In communism there is no respect to the individual; no individual liberty; no individual worth - once again the individual is subsumed to the almighty collective.
FUCK fascism and FUCK communism. They're both equally barbaric, equally despicable and equally worthless.
If fascism is capitalism then I, and other libertarians, are fascists. You need to rethink your rhetoric. Not only is it false but it is dangerously unhinged. -- If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers. Vote 3rd Party in 2016 an beyond
No. It shouldn't be. But if the law is broadly written then it could be (at the whim of an inspector). And you would lose in court.
In NY there is alternate side of the street parking. Namely the city cleans one side of the street and you have to move your car. It is acceptable and normal to double park on the other side of the street during the hour and half time period that the street cleaner comes by.
However - the double parking is against the law. And, once in a while, tickets are given to everyone who double parked. And you, the poor schmuck who got the ticket, will not win if you dispute the ticket. The judge will say that double parking is against the law. He may take a few dollars off the ticket but you're still out 60.00+ dollars.
So, the fear is that the city, at their whim, will ticket everyone. How would you like to get a $1000 ticket?
Zoning is generally a good thing. We've already made a distinction between manufacturing and residential. AirBNB doesn't cover that.
Not bothering your neighbors is generally a good thing. But it's also a good thing for a renter to be able to make some money by renting out a spare bedroom. Example you have an apartment and so does your girlfriend. You rent out your apartment for the weekend and spend it at your girlfriend's place. And secondly in NYC there are lots of apartment buildings where you DO NOT know your neighbors; where a large percentage of the people are there for 1-2 years at max and only go there to sleep (and rarely seeing or interacting with their immediate neighbors.)
It's also a good thing for people coming to the city. Hotel's are crazy expensive. The money they save on hotels they spend elsewhere.
The city is being ham-handed about this. I can see restricting landlords from renting out apartments but I cannot see why a tenant cannot rent out his PRIMARY residential space. (Emphasized PRIMARY because we want to dissuade people from renting a second apartment for the sole purpose of being a "hotel operator" on AIRBNB).
Very good points about war being inevitable if attempts are made to restrict growth in developing countries.
:-)
but if ocean based windfarms can take care of NY, LA, London, Tokyo, etc... that would be a great start.
.
Nuclear is definitely an option that should not be ignored.
Re solar and wind - I see nothing but growth on horizon; and it doesn't need to be the wet dream of photo-voltaic paints or other such things.
If we can get residential small towns to be energy self-sufficient (whether in the US or the Congo) that will be a godsend in-and-of-itself.
Ocean based wind-farms will soon be a reality. A large percentage of major cities are coastal (Paris, Berlin, Mexico City, Moscow, New Dehli, Beijing being obvious exceptions).
OK. Lots of people don't live in coastal cities
I tend to using the Mussolini description: "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
No. What I'm referring to is using the power of the state to enhance your business. If the state does not pass such laws then no. Absolutely not. Are there other potential problems in a laissez-faire society? Of course. But this isn't one of them.
In case you're talking about monopolies there have been a lot of studies showing people attempting to create monopolies but failing. They were able to drive out competitors but not able to recoup their loses in driving them out. The flaw in the studies are that they were only able to look at a small time period (US from the 1830s to 1892 [Sherman Anti-Trust Act])
Sorry. Capitalism is never equal to fascism. It's silly, empty, foolish, ignorant rhetoric to say so.
What's fascism is creating rules and procedures for the expressed purpose of hurting a specific group of people. The US Constitution's check and balances was instituted to curtail such actions. A free-wheeling, unsupervised, bureaucracy with not check and balance is closer to your definition of fascism than the free market.
I think you've mistaken Trump for Hillary and the US Chamber of Progress.(Oh, meant Commerce).
Like Trump or Not he his absolutely not for "Capitalism without boundaries"
VCs aren't necessarily into "tying up all of the IP and suing everyone into oblivion." There are many VCs who are hurt by this behavior; and just as important, VCs who are hesitant to get into this space because of such BS.
Stop making things up.
The pseudo-syllogism that
capitalism is bad
VCs are capitalists only in it for the quick profit (never mind examples such as Amazon)
Some legals types create a VC firm which type up IP
Therefore VCs created this environment.
Is retarded.