I think it's obvious those particular messages shouldn't be an issue here. Last I checked ex post facto is still not allowed. My current understanding is that there have been messages found that were classified at the time that she transmitted them using her personal server. At the very least she deserves official censure for failing to follow appropriate State Department procedures. I think Treason is probably overstating the case as would be violations of the Patriot Act or Espionage Act, however the title 18 violation currently looks legit and that's pretty serious stuff.
I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.
So, you think that they should have increased the deficit by even more than the $1 trillion they did in Obama's first year?
Weirdly yes. The Federal Government's budget as a currency issuer does not work the same way as a household or state budget. (both of whom are currency users not issuers) The additional deficit could have been accomplished either through a temporary tax cut or an increase in spending. The limiting factor on government spending under a fiat currency regime is not their ability to borrow, which is infinite, rather it is inflation which has been remarkably low lately. It's a hard concept to grasp, especially for a fiscal conservative like me, but that's how our system works. Here's a good explanation if you're interested: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
Although there were some things to complain about with regards to the New Deal, I was actually talking more about the poor response by the Fed and the attempts to cut Federal spending as things were melting down.
I disagree. Although I wasn't particularly happy with many of the Democratic responses, they were right in one thing, increasing Federal spending was the correct course of action. That's the one thing that Republicans most opposed. If it were up to them, they would have slashed spending much as happened in the great depression and with similar results. It's pretty straightforward sectoral balances stuff.
The size of the disaster was equivalent. Yes, the response was poor, but the response during the depression was downright stupid, so that's an improvement and why it wasn't as terrible.
Agreed - he said he wanted to work with the other side, but then whenever they met he was like "hey, I won, get over it!" and wouldn't compromise at all.
I'm a Libertarian, and that's not how it looked to someone who wasn't part of one of the major parties. Sure, he staked out a position on things he wanted, but as best I could tell he bent over nearly backwards trying to broker some kind of deal. The Republicans were so focused on not working with him they gave up an opportunity to get legislation passed that would actually move things farther towards their philosophy. Democrats are horrible negotiators because they believe in government, that always leads them to make compromises which often times give away too much.
And do not claim it was because the recession was so bad, because previously the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.
If you're going to compare you really need to use the great depression as your benchmark, this was on that sort of scale and the recovery there was pretty slow.
Unfortunately no one was really punished for all that fraud; not just by the ratings agencies but by loan originators and the banks that sold mortgage backed securities.
I remember the savings and loan crisis and that's the reaction I wanted to see. Prosecutions in the hundreds and thousands, enough to send a giant shudder of fear through the financial industry and get them back to a more conservative posture. Instead we gave them a big pass, so of course the lesson they took from that was "go ahead and do it again, the profits outweigh the consequences".
That's assuming they stay with their original careers.
I'm not assuming that at all, but I get it, you don't think automation, robots or expert networks are going to change much of anything when it comes to the labor market. I disagree, but frankly I hope you're right as the other scenario is going to be ugly.
Weird. When I first started working there were tons of people who had been in the company for decades, nowadays I rarely see that. There must be some kind of aggregation effect that is obscuring the change.
"Automation of the service sector" is meaningless. There is an infinite number of services that can be provided, and they can't all be automated. If you could really replace every single service sector job with robots, you'd have sentient androids, and in that case, they would probably value their own labor and become market participants.
If we're talking about 100% automation I agree, however what we're more likely to see is a situation more like what has happened with agriculture and manufacturing. What was once a source of many jobs asymptotically approaches zero over time. Within our lifetimes you're going to see a situation where less than 10% of the population can add more value than it costs to employ them. That will still mean nearly a billion people working, but what exactly are the other nine billion going to do? In the past the answer was to move to another sector of the economy, this time that seems unlikely.
People have never starved to death because their jobs were eliminated by automation; most simply find better jobs instead.
This entire discussion is based around the idea that this time is different. If automation of the service sector means that everyone finds jobs in some new fourth sector of the economy that we don't currently know about then the rest of the discussion is moot. I find that unlikely but it is possible.
If it were only the factories that automated then yes. The service sector seems to be taking to automation quite well so I wouldn't get too comfortable with that concept.
Terms like "cost" and "free" don't make any sense when nobody has anything to trade.
The word "nobody" is misleading. There will still be plenty of individuals with things to trade after the laborers with less value than robots starve to death.
Should "a small percentage of the population" hold the rest of the population hostage in that situation, that's not capitalism, it's simple totalitarianism.
You're confusing political systems with economic systems.
But there is an even more basic error with geoskd's premise: when machines can make most of our material needs for free, labor won't lose any value. There is an infinite demand for labor.
Actually no. There are infinite wants, but a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. There is infinite demand for labor only at price zero.
Kind of yeah. In general, humans prioritize starting with self and moving outwards rather than starting with species and moving inwards. This means there will always be someone who wants to seize power. Grant more power to the state and you create more openings for this to occur. Does that mean we're doomed or should embrace anarchy? No, but it means that bigger government isn't intrinsically good and comes with risks. That means we need to choose carefully what we allow our government to do and how big we allow it to grow. Like many things a little is good, more is a bit better but a lot is bad.
So want to see socialism, first the psychopaths have to go, quite simply they will corrupt any ism they are a part of, attempt to turn it into an authoritarian state where they have control and can dominate and exploit the citizens of that society.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's obvious those particular messages shouldn't be an issue here. Last I checked ex post facto is still not allowed. My current understanding is that there have been messages found that were classified at the time that she transmitted them using her personal server. At the very least she deserves official censure for failing to follow appropriate State Department procedures. I think Treason is probably overstating the case as would be violations of the Patriot Act or Espionage Act, however the title 18 violation currently looks legit and that's pretty serious stuff.
I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.
Then we have no common ground on which to come to an understanding.
That's understandable, it's not an intuitive concept especially for people without training in accounting.
So, you think that they should have increased the deficit by even more than the $1 trillion they did in Obama's first year?
Weirdly yes. The Federal Government's budget as a currency issuer does not work the same way as a household or state budget. (both of whom are currency users not issuers) The additional deficit could have been accomplished either through a temporary tax cut or an increase in spending. The limiting factor on government spending under a fiat currency regime is not their ability to borrow, which is infinite, rather it is inflation which has been remarkably low lately. It's a hard concept to grasp, especially for a fiscal conservative like me, but that's how our system works. Here's a good explanation if you're interested: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
Although there were some things to complain about with regards to the New Deal, I was actually talking more about the poor response by the Fed and the attempts to cut Federal spending as things were melting down.
I disagree. Although I wasn't particularly happy with many of the Democratic responses, they were right in one thing, increasing Federal spending was the correct course of action. That's the one thing that Republicans most opposed. If it were up to them, they would have slashed spending much as happened in the great depression and with similar results. It's pretty straightforward sectoral balances stuff.
The size of the disaster was equivalent. Yes, the response was poor, but the response during the depression was downright stupid, so that's an improvement and why it wasn't as terrible.
Agreed - he said he wanted to work with the other side, but then whenever they met he was like "hey, I won, get over it!" and wouldn't compromise at all.
I'm a Libertarian, and that's not how it looked to someone who wasn't part of one of the major parties. Sure, he staked out a position on things he wanted, but as best I could tell he bent over nearly backwards trying to broker some kind of deal. The Republicans were so focused on not working with him they gave up an opportunity to get legislation passed that would actually move things farther towards their philosophy. Democrats are horrible negotiators because they believe in government, that always leads them to make compromises which often times give away too much.
When unemployment is high is not the time to focus on adding historical new burdens to hiring, such as Obamacare.
I have to agree I was disappointed with his choice of focus.
And do not claim it was because the recession was so bad, because previously the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.
If you're going to compare you really need to use the great depression as your benchmark, this was on that sort of scale and the recovery there was pretty slow.
Unfortunately no one was really punished for all that fraud; not just by the ratings agencies but by loan originators and the banks that sold mortgage backed securities.
I remember the savings and loan crisis and that's the reaction I wanted to see. Prosecutions in the hundreds and thousands, enough to send a giant shudder of fear through the financial industry and get them back to a more conservative posture. Instead we gave them a big pass, so of course the lesson they took from that was "go ahead and do it again, the profits outweigh the consequences".
That's assuming they stay with their original careers.
I'm not assuming that at all, but I get it, you don't think automation, robots or expert networks are going to change much of anything when it comes to the labor market. I disagree, but frankly I hope you're right as the other scenario is going to be ugly.
Weird. When I first started working there were tons of people who had been in the company for decades, nowadays I rarely see that. There must be some kind of aggregation effect that is obscuring the change.
"Automation of the service sector" is meaningless. There is an infinite number of services that can be provided, and they can't all be automated. If you could really replace every single service sector job with robots, you'd have sentient androids, and in that case, they would probably value their own labor and become market participants.
If we're talking about 100% automation I agree, however what we're more likely to see is a situation more like what has happened with agriculture and manufacturing. What was once a source of many jobs asymptotically approaches zero over time. Within our lifetimes you're going to see a situation where less than 10% of the population can add more value than it costs to employ them. That will still mean nearly a billion people working, but what exactly are the other nine billion going to do? In the past the answer was to move to another sector of the economy, this time that seems unlikely.
People have never starved to death because their jobs were eliminated by automation; most simply find better jobs instead.
This entire discussion is based around the idea that this time is different. If automation of the service sector means that everyone finds jobs in some new fourth sector of the economy that we don't currently know about then the rest of the discussion is moot. I find that unlikely but it is possible.
If it were only the factories that automated then yes. The service sector seems to be taking to automation quite well so I wouldn't get too comfortable with that concept.
Terms like "cost" and "free" don't make any sense when nobody has anything to trade.
The word "nobody" is misleading. There will still be plenty of individuals with things to trade after the laborers with less value than robots starve to death.
Should "a small percentage of the population" hold the rest of the population hostage in that situation, that's not capitalism, it's simple totalitarianism.
You're confusing political systems with economic systems.
But there is an even more basic error with geoskd's premise: when machines can make most of our material needs for free, labor won't lose any value. There is an infinite demand for labor.
Actually no. There are infinite wants, but a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. There is infinite demand for labor only at price zero.
Sadly there don't seem to be any workable ideas. I looked around and all the current writing seems to be pie in the sky stuff.
As a percentage of your available funds though it's more. (and often more than you have)
That's bullshit. If everything can be produced at zero cost, there is no scarcity and hence no money or economics at all.
Labor does not represent 100% of cost. Even with perfect automation products will not be free.
That would be wonderful: all basic human needs met without any backbreaking work.
You're making a mighty big assumption about the distribution of profits.
Average job tenure is as high today as it ever was.
That seems like a pretty enormous claim and doesn't match my experience, have any data to back it up?
Kind of yeah. In general, humans prioritize starting with self and moving outwards rather than starting with species and moving inwards. This means there will always be someone who wants to seize power. Grant more power to the state and you create more openings for this to occur. Does that mean we're doomed or should embrace anarchy? No, but it means that bigger government isn't intrinsically good and comes with risks. That means we need to choose carefully what we allow our government to do and how big we allow it to grow. Like many things a little is good, more is a bit better but a lot is bad.
So want to see socialism, first the psychopaths have to go, quite simply they will corrupt any ism they are a part of, attempt to turn it into an authoritarian state where they have control and can dominate and exploit the citizens of that society.
So socialism is pretty much out then?
I believe he was speaking of the Republican bible, none of that leftist hippie King James garbage.